[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 58 (Wednesday, May 7, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2265-H2281]
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} 1217
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. Combest
(Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on
Tuesday, May 6, 1997, the amendment by the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms.
Jackson-Lee] had been disposed of and title II was open for amendment
at any point.
Pursuant to the order of the Committee of that day, the following
Members may offer their amendments to title II even after the reading
has progressed beyond that title:
Amendment No. 51 by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran];
Amendment No. 43 by the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez];
and
Amendment No. 2 by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
amendment no. 5 offered by mr. frank of massachusetts
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The unfinished business is the demand for a
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 voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate 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
of 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.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 172,
noes 252, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 106]
AYES--172
Abercrombie
Allen
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Carson
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E.B.
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--252
Ackerman
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
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas
Manzullo
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
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
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
[[Page H2266]]
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--9
Andrews
Becerra
Clay
DeFazio
Edwards
Gutierrez
Kaptur
Reyes
Schiff
{time} 1235
Ms. SANCHEZ and Mr. SNYDER changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I missed rollcall votes 105
and 106. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on both votes.
Amendment No. 30 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Combest). The Clerk will designate the
amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 30 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
Page 99, strike line 12 and all that follows through line
25 on page 99, and insert the following:
SEC. 223. PREFERENCES FOR OCCUPANCY.
(a) In General.--Except for projects or portions of
projects designated for occupancy pursuant to section 227
with respect to which the Secretary has determined that
application of this section would result in excessive delays
in meeting the housing needs of such families, each public
housing agency shall establish a system for making dwelling
units in public housing available for occupancy that--
(1) for not less than 50 percent of the units that are made
available for occupancy in a given fiscal year, gives
preference to families that occupy substandard housing
(including families that are homeless or living in a shelter
for homeless families), are paying more than 50 percent of
family income for rent, or are involuntarily displaced
(including displacement because of disposition of a
multifamily housing project under section 203 of the Housing
and Community Development Amendments of 1978) at the same
time they are seeking assistance under this Act; and
(2) for any remaining units to be made available for
occupancy, gives preference in accordance with a system of
preferences established by the public housing agency in
writing and after public hearing to respond to local housing
needs and priorities, which may include--
(A) assisting very low-income families who either reside in
transitional housing assisted under title IV of the Stewart
B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, or participate in a
program designed to provide public assistance recipients with
greater access to employment and educational opportunities;
(B) assisting families identified by local public agencies
involved in providing for the welfare of children as having a
lack of adequate housing that is a primary factor in the
imminent placement of a child in foster care, or in
preventing the discharge of a child from foster care and
reunification with his or her family;
(C) assisting youth, upon discharge from foster care, in
cases in which return to the family or extended family or
adoption is not available;
(D) assisting families that include one or more adult
members who are employed; and
(E) achieving other objectives of national housing policy
as affirmed by the Congress.
Page 100, line (1) strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(b)''.
Page 100, line 4, after ``preferences'' insert ``under
subsection (a)(2)''.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me say, although I
appreciate very much some of the common ground that the chairman and
ranking member have shared and supported amendments that I have offered
regarding job training and jobs, allow me to say that the general
direction of this particular legislation regarding housing I have a
great disagreement with, as many of my friends and associates on this
side of the aisle. One of the ones is the effort behind this particular
amendment which has to do with keeping in the Federal preferences
dealing with housing particularly for the poorest of the poor and
homeless.
I recognize that we are looking at this issue from different colored
glasses, but might I just share with colleagues that in Houston alone
in October 1996 the University of Houston Center for Public Policy
indicates that there are 9,216 homeless persons. It also showed in the
Houston office of the Veterans' Administration that there were 9,216
individuals who are homeless, 3,500 were homeless veterans. New York
City alone has 100,000 homeless families on any given night. The
National Coalition for the Homeless cites that 7 million families were
identified as homeless.
Therefore, my issue is that we must have a housing system that not
only appeals to our working families, affordable housing, but it also
responds to those individuals who need quality housing who are the
poorest of the poor. It is my sense that Federal preferences heretofore
had done that, allowing for local authorities to be able to address
themselves to the disabled, senior citizens and as well the homeless.
That is the reason as well why I spoke earlier this week on the
question of one-for-one replacement, not to talk about the issues in
Chicago or New York or California but to talk about the issues in
cities like Houston and rural communities where the one-for-one
replacement is still needed because of the low number of public housing
dwelling units for the poorest of the poor, homeless individuals as
well as veterans as well as the working very poor.
I would ask the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] if he
would, because this issue is so very important, HUD statistics show
there is a 40-year wait for public housing in New York, a 12-year wait
for public housing in Chicago, a 22-year wait in Philadelphia, a 20-
year wait in Dade County, FL, and in my city alone, a large number of
individuals, some 20,000, on the waiting list. I would like to see us
work through this issue.
I will be withdrawing this amendment but not withdrawing my pain and
my concern that the least of those, the most vulnerable, need housing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] to engage in a colloquy to try and work through this issue.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. First of all, let me thank the
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] for the efforts she is making
on behalf of the constituents which she represents and with regard to
constituencies outside of her congressional district who also are
suffering as a result of not enough affordable housing being made
available in the Houston area.
This is a problem that is not just unique to Houston. The truth is
that, if we look at what the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]
is attempting to do, her efforts are stymied largely because we simply
do not have enough resources in this bill to begin to build any new
units of affordable housing. This bill in a tragic sense, I think,
indicts the housing policies of this country. Despite the fact that the
largest single growing portion of our population is the poorest of the
poor in the United States of America, this bill does not contain
funding for a single new housing unit. And so when we get into very
tight communities such as the Houston market, where there is very
little affordable housing stock, and since we have gotten rid of the
one-for-one requirement, the one-for-one requirement means, if we are
going to take a housing unit out of circulation, that we have to
replace it with a new housing unit so that we do not lose the total
number of units available to a local community.
While that was a positive development for many years, because of the
lower funding levels, it meant that we found many housing projects
throughout the country where we found boarded-up projects because the
local housing authority was no longer able to afford to build a whole
new housing project, and so they would have to keep the old housing
projects in existence. It is a terrible dilemma.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-
Lee] has expired.
(On request of Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts, and by unanimous
consent, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion what I
would suggest to the gentlewoman from Texas is that she has done some
fine work on this issue. She adds to the debate and she has, I think,
brought to the floor the issue of the downside risk of the repeal of
the one-for-one requirement.
I think that there are some provisions we have included in the bill
that can provide some assistance in terms of mixed income housing with
an amendment that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] was willing
to accept
[[Page H2267]]
in the committee. But I do believe that this is not going to completely
suffice a housing market such as the Houston market. I look forward to
working with the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], and I hope
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], if the chairman would just
acknowledge for one moment, that in housing markets such as the Houston
market, the repeal of one-for-one, while desirable as a national
policy, can create difficulties in specific marketplaces where we
simply do not have enough housing units to meet the needs of the very
poor.
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 1 additional minute.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. In conclusion, I would like to suggest
that I think that this is an issue that the gentleman from New York,
the chairman, has shown, while a commitment to the repeal of one-for-
one, a recognition that this is going to have some anomalies in terms
of how this is going to affect specific communities.
I am sure the chairman of the committee as well as the ranking member
would like to work with the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] to
try to address the specific concerns of the Houston community.
{time} 1245
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and I thank the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Lazio] for what he is about to respond, and hoping that we can
work through conference on this issue.
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, let me just comment that in fact
there is no doubt that we need to look to new tools to develop
additional units of housing, affordable housing, wherever we can. That
is really the intent of H.R. 2. Within H.R. 2 we are allowing for those
buildings that are under considerable physical stress, where they
really are in deep need of modernization and would otherwise be torn
down that the tenants at least be given vouchers so they would be able
to use over and above what we have right now, incremental vouchers, new
vouchers, so that people can go out there and use them to search for
housing.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] for his leadership, and I know that one-
for-one replacement is something we will keep working on for those
kinds of communities. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] very much for his leadership.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms.
Jackson-Lee] withdrawing her amendment?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
[Ms. Jackson-Lee] is withdrawn.
Amendments Offered By Ms. Velazquez
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, and I ask
unanimous consent that amendments 43 and 44, as modified, be considered
en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from New York?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendments offered by Ms. Velazquez:
Page 104, lines 12 and 13, strike ``not less than $25 nor
more than $50'' and insert ``not more than $25''.
Page 193, strike lines 4 and 5 and insert the following:
(B) shall be not more than $25; and
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendments be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from New York?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I
ask unanimous consent, and I understand that the gentlewoman's staff
and our staff have been working together to try and provide some
parameters for time, and that there has been a tentative agreement that
we would set the time limit at 30 minutes equally divided, half of that
controlled by the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez] and half
controlled by myself; and I make that unanimous-consent request.
Mr. Chairman, I do this for the purpose of assuring that we have this
time limitation.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York may inquire, but we can
only dispose of one unanimous-consent request at a time.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, then I reserve the right to
object at this point.
Mr. Chairman, if I could just make an inquiry of the gentlewoman from
New York?
The CHAIRMAN. Under the gentleman's reservation of objection the
gentleman may inquire of the other side anything he needs to know to
determine whether or not he will object.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. If I can inquire of the gentlewoman if that
correctly reflects her understanding, that we can have a time
limitation of 30 minutes, 15 minutes controlled by either side, 15
minutes controlled by myself, 15 minutes controlled by the gentlewoman
from New York in order to consider her en bloc application, and I am
wondering if that meets with the gentlewoman's approval?
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would not
object to the unanimous consent request.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent then, to
ensure that there is time limitation on the en bloc amendment of 30
minutes, that 15 minutes be controlled by the gentlewoman from New York
[Ms. Velazquez] and 15 minutes controlled by myself.
The CHAIRMAN. And on all amendments thereto; is that correct?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. On all amendments thereto; yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York.
There was no objection.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, once again we are debating a housing bill that is an
insult to poor families. Instead of truly helping people move into the
work force, this bill includes provisions that threaten a very basic
and human need, access to safe affordable and clean housing. If we are
really going to help families climb out of poverty and into lives of
dignity, decency, and safety, they must have a fair chance to succeed.
Across America millions of households pay more than half of their
income on rent. H.R. 2 adds to the burden on the poorest families by
raising minimum rents to between $25 to $50. Fifty dollars may not seem
like much, but it may force the very, very poor to choose between food
and shelter.
By limiting the minimum rents to no more than $25, my amendment
provides a basic protection for the most disadvantaged Americans. It is
the final safety net for families that have suddenly fallen on
extremely hard times. I strongly urge the adoption of these provisions.
My colleagues, families that live in public housing are willing to
pay rent. But, consider the 300,000 households who are protected by my
proposal. They live in absolute poverty. They are parents who have lost
their jobs or have to pay unexpected medical expenses. They are
families climbing out of homelessness.
The chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity
often points out that H.R. 2 includes exemptions for some families.
Yet, consider the context. First, the Republican Congress cuts PHA
budget to the bone and now they want to force PHA's to grant exemption,
exemptions that work against their own financial interests.
As if this was not bad enough, H.R. 2 forces struggling families to
jump through intimidating, bureaucratic hoops to get hardship waivers.
That is
[[Page H2268]]
not a helping hand. That is harassment.
My colleagues, if this legislation passes, it will create an
underclass of people that cannot even afford public housing. Worst of
all, with 600,000 people already pushed into homelessness by Republican
budget cuts and shortages of homeless shelters, the poorest of the poor
will have no place to turn. For a country that prides itself on the
American dream, we cannot allow this to happen.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Baker].
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding this time
to me. This of course is another important amendment aimed at limiting
the important reforms that Chairman Lazio and the Republicans are
proposing with regard to the utilization of public housing.
What has been previously agreed to is that if an individual leaves
public housing and gets employment, that the person who makes more
money will be able to keep it under the provisions of this bill. Under
the old system, which the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] was
attempting to adopt earlier with an amendment rejected by the House, as
the person's income would go up, so concurrently would the amount of
rent paid, which is certainly not an incentive for a family struggling
to go out and try to find additional work for the family to make
additional income when the rent increase takes away the extra benefit
of that effort.
This amendment would then reach inside the housing authority's
discretion and say that the maximum rent someone could be required to
pay in a hardship circumstance would be $25 down to zero, so that we
are attempting to train individuals in homeownership skills, the idea
that one should work, take care of their family, and make some
contribution toward one's own shelter.
The Velazquez amendment would say that any individual who has access
to public housing could pay zero. If you homeowners in America have
that luxury and that the proposal as put together by the chairman,
ranging to $25 to $50 minimum rent, to be determined by the housing
authority, would also put in the hands of the authority the ability to
look at that individual and say, yes, you have an unusual circumstance
and temporarily we will grant you access to housing at a minimal level.
But understand, public housing is not intended to be a retirement home.
This is transitional housing, and while you are here we expect you to
learn what skills are required to be an effective homeowner, and making
a contribution toward your own housing is certainly an important part
of that lesson.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I think this is an
important amendment. I think that people perhaps are unfamiliar with
exactly the kinds of circumstances that many of the very poor people
that are occupying public housing units face on a day-to-day basis.
The truth is that, if we look at the kinds of people that have just
lost their job or people that have had long-term unemployment, people
that have had severe medical problems, if you look at the kinds of
circumstances where in some States, for instance, the State of Texas,
where your total welfare benefit can be as low as $188 a month, I just
talked to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] and asked her what
the basic welfare benefit was in the State of Florida. She said it was
under $200 a month. I was wondering what, which my friend from North
Carolina [Mr. Watt] suggested, the welfare benefit in the State of
North Carolina might be.
Certainly it can sound like this is not very much money. But the
truth of the matter is, if you look at what raising these minimum rents
from $25 to $50 can actually incur, there will be over 340,000 families
in these circumstances whose rents will increase by $315 a year.
That does not seem like a lot of money to people who can occupy this
Chamber. But if you cannot occupy this Chamber and you look at the
kinds of circumstances that people that have these very minimum
incomes, that are on AFDC, this can be very hurtful. It can mean
whether or not a baby is going to be fed. It can mean whether or not
the medicine is going to be bought. It can mean whether or not the
children are going to wake up hungry or go to bed hungry.
These are the kinds of real-world issues that I feel far too many
families in these circumstances face every day. So I would hope that we
can find it in our hearts to support a minimum rent of $25, but we do
not have to turn around and raise that to $50.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida, [Mrs. Carrie Meek].
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New
York [Ms. Velazquez] for yielding the time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that, No. 1, I graciously support
the amendment of my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York [Ms.
Velazquez]. Like many of my colleagues in this body, I know from whence
my colleague is coming. I know what the background is and the need for
this amendment.
First of all, there are some false assumptions that I need to talk
about quickly. One false assumption is that people are going to have
jobs. That is a false assumption. My colleague wants to take care of
these people who have tried very hard to get a job but who will not
have a job. If they get one, it will last only 2 or 3 months or more.
The second thing the gentlewoman is trying to do is to be sure that
the welfare reform bill works so that people can maintain housing and
keep their quality of life going, as poor as it is. I do not want to
see my colleagues put too much emphasis on the housing authorities on
this bill.
I have worked with them over the years. They are good people. But
many times there is too much discretion in the way they make their
decisions that something that you would like to see done in terms of an
exemption, two-thirds of the families that we have been talking about
are affected by this.
I think the amendment is a good one, and I think that we cannot
dictate according to circumstances all over this country how much a
person should pay. I thank the gentlewoman from New York [Ms.
Velazquez] for bringing this amendment to the attention of this House,
and I am asking the support of my colleagues for the amendment of the
gentlewoman from New York.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this good amendment. We often talk
about doing the right thing. Voting in support of this amendment is the
right thing.
The amendment would require local housing authorities to set minimum
rents of $0-$25 for public housing and assisted housing. Under the
bill, minimum rents would be set between $25 and $50 monthly.
We know that some residents of public housing and assisted housing
will lose their SSI benefits under the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. This
would place an added burden on individuals already financially strapped
and may result in the eviction of those simply unable to pay.
The Velazquez amendment does not dictate how much a tenant will pay.
It recognizes that depending on the immediate circumstances, some
tenants cannot afford to pay even a dollar for rent. We may not want to
admit it--but there are still v-e-r-y poor people in our country.
For people with little or no income, the $25-$50 threshold required
in the bill, shuts them out of the housing market. Mr. Speaker, I
cannot think of a city in America that wants to increase its homeless
population.
The amendment also authorizes HUD to develop exemptions for families
faced with unanticipated medical expenses, families who have lost their
welfare benefits, and persons unemployed.
The bill allows local public housing authorities to determine
hardship exemptions. I will not comment about the myriad of exemptions
and scope of some exemptions that will come out of this newly granted
authority.
Mr. Speaker, approximately two-thirds of the families affected by the
new minimum rent requirement would be families with children. Let's do
the right thing to keep families in safe affordable housing. Support
this good amendment.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Indiana, [Ms. Julia Carson].
[[Page H2269]]
Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I too
want to commend the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez] for
having the foresight, the compassion, the sensitivity, and the
understanding to offer her amendment.
Prior to becoming a Member of the U.S. Congress, I headed a welfare
agency in the city of Indianapolis. When I took it over, it had a $20
million deficit. When I left, it had $20 million in the bank. We took
care of poor people. We got people off of welfare and put them into
jobs and into training and into educational experiences.
We did not do that by being cruel. We did not do that by removing a
safety net, as this bill would do ultimately; and that is to annihilate
the Brooke amendment to raise from $25 to $50 a month the minimum rent
that persons would have to pay in public housing.
We understand, by virtue of my past experience, that there are a lot
of people that are responsible who want to take care of their families
but life's circumstances do not allow them temporarily to do that. We
should not pass a punitive measure against somebody who finds
themselves in circumstances over which they have no control. I support
the amendment enthusiastically.
{time} 1300
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Jackson].
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of
the Velazquez amendment, which sets a minimum rent of zero to $25 and a
waiver for our Nation's most vulnerable who find themselves caught in
situations of extreme hardship. I thank the gentlewoman from New York
for her strong commitment to those who need our help the most and
appreciate her advocacy on behalf of this critical issue.
I want to first begin with a point of clarification. Public housing,
as the other side has referred to it, is not transitional housing. It
is affordable housing, and it is not free housing. It is affordable
housing because the private market does not build homes for poor people
and that is why the Government is in the housing business.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the onerous provision of H.R. 2 which
establishes a minimum rent for public housing and choice-based rental
assistance recipients and provides only a voluntary waiver for hardship
situations. While $25 to $50 does not seem like anything to most of us
fortunate enough to have a steady stream of income, a minimum rent
above $25 would pose a genuine hardship on families who are earning
little or no income. This is especially true in the case of families
who have lost or are at risk of losing their welfare benefits, are
unemployed, are transitioning from homelessness, or are unexpectedly
burdened by unanticipated medical expenses. For families caught in such
desperate straits, $50 may just constitute too high a monthly expense.
Mr. Chairman, this provision could unduly burden 340,000 families
across the Nation if all public housing authorities implemented this
rent scheme. Two-thirds of the families affected by this would be
families with young children. Last year in the State of Illinois, 4,464
families were adversely impacted by the $25 minimum rent. Doubling this
figure would force our neediest constituents to survive under further
strain to provide food, medicine, and clothing for their children.
Mr. Chairman, these are basic human necessities which we take for
granted. In this Nation, which is considered an economic superpower in
the world community, how can we demonstrate concern for those
struggling to survive under such desperate conditions?
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for offering this
critical amendment and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
the Virgin Islands [Ms. Christian-Green].
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New
York.
I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my colleague from
New York and I commend her for compassion and courage in offering it.
If enacted, the Velazquez amendment would allow the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development to create certain classes of hardship and
accordingly set a minimum rent under this category of no more than $25.
I come from an area, Mr. Chairman, where in recent years we have been
ravished by one devastating hurricane after an another. Thousands of my
constituents were left homeless and jobless after these storms. It
would be unconscionable if, in the face of such unexpected and
devastating loss, a family would face eviction because there was no
flexibility to provide them with a period of adjustment by setting
their monthly rent at a lower level than the minimum $25 that H.R. 2
would now require.
Overall, Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned that this bill before us
today, the so-called Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act, is yet
another in a series of actions being taken against the poor of our
Nation. If H.R. 2 wants to live up to its charge, then we must pass the
Velazquez amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do so.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Nadler].
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the Velazquez amendment.
Some of the reasons have been stated and I will briefly allude to them.
The fact is that both amounts of money we are talking about are very
small: $25 a month, $50 a month. But for people who do not have it,
because they are suddenly faced with an unanticipated medical
emergency, because they are in transition between homelessness and
having housing, because they have just lost their job and for some
reason cannot get unemployment insurance, because they have applied for
public benefits but the public benefits have not come through yet,
because they have lost their welfare benefits, and we have in recent
years set up a myriad of ways that people can lose their welfare
benefits even when they should not, because they are unemployed, for
whatever reason, $25 can be a huge amount of money. There is no reason
to change the current situation where the public housing authority can
set the minimum and substitute a system where the person has to seek a
waiver, go through the bureaucracy, and wait the time at a time of
crisis in their own lives. There is no reason to do that. It really
adds nothing to this bill.
Second, I want to address myself to the comment made by the gentleman
from Louisiana who said public housing is not permanent housing, it is
not a retirement home, it is transitional housing. Well, it is not
transitional housing for many people. People in public housing whose
only sin is that they are making $5 or $6 or $7 an hour, they are
making minimum wage or they are making $7 an hour and they cannot
afford housing on the permanent market, that is permanent housing for
them.
Until we decide that the minimum wage ought to be a living wage,
ought to be a wage where people can afford housing on the private
market, and I think the people on that side of the aisle do not agree
with that kind of philosophy, I do not think anybody would vote for a
$12 or $13 minimum wage, I am not too sure how many people would on
this side either, but until we do something like that, there are going
to be millions of people in this country working 40 or 50 hours a week,
paying taxes and not having enough money to get housing on the private
market. For them, public housing is the only possible permanent home.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Velazquez amendment and urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
The bill provides for a minimum rent of $50 per month. Ms.
Velazquez's amendment provides for a minimum rent of $25 a month. And I
am sure, and I am glad, that most American citizens probably cannot
relate to what all this bickering is about. Twenty five dollars a
month, $325 a year, is peanuts to most people, and that is fortunate in
America.
But there are some of us who remember when $325 a year, $25 a month,
was a major, major difference between our ability to eat and not eat.
And it is important to us to look out for people in
[[Page H2270]]
our country who for whatever reason, often for reasons not of their own
making, they are between jobs, they are down on their luck, so to
speak, as we used to say, and they simply do not have the money.
So, we are talking about for some people in this country, the issue
of whether they have housing or whether they do not have housing,
whether we put more people on the street or whether we provide some
compassion and provisions for them to have a roof above their heads.
For that reason, I want to applaud the gentlewoman from New York,
[Ms. Velazquez], for bringing this amendment to us and encourage my
colleagues in the House to support the amendment. It will make this
bill a better bill.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
My colleagues, once again we are telling disadvantaged families that
they do not matter, that they are expendable, all in the name of a
capital gains tax cut.
I call on all of my colleagues to ask themselves if there is anyplace
left for compassion in this Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Let us, if we can, fix the parameters of this debate. Under the terms
of H.R. 2 we ask every tenant to pay a minimum rent. That minimum rent
can be set by the local housing authority at between $25 and $50 per
month. There are people who object to the fact that a minimum rent is
established, or that it is established at that range from $25 to $50 a
month.
The amendment of the gentlewoman from New York would suggest that the
minimum rent ought to be from $0 to $25, so that their minimum rent
might be $5 a month or $4 a month.
The very idea that we have been talking about so much over the last 4
days is that we need additional help for more people, that there is
need out there for more people. But when we say to a family who
receives public housing, and very often the additional benefit of
utilities, that they do not have to do anything, they do not even have
to pay a minimum rent of $25 or $30 or $35, what we are saying to the
people who are on the waiting list, to people who cannot even get into
public housing to begin with and who are paying market rate is, they
are going to have to wait out there a whole lot longer because this
family is not willing to do its fair share.
Now, in this bill we establish exemptions. We establish exemptions.
We say in the bill, and I am going to read exactly from the bill, if I
can:
The local housing agency shall grant an exemption to any
family unable to pay such amount because of financial
hardship which shall include situations in which, one, the
family has lost eligibility or is awaiting an eligibility
determination for Federal, State or local programs. Two, the
family would be evicted as a result of the imposition of the
minimum rent requirement under the subsection. Three, the
income of the family has decreased because of changed
circumstances, because of loss of employment. Four, a death
in the family has occurred, as well as other situations as
may be determined by the agency.
So, we are providing the broad exemptions that families might
possibly need if they were faced with the hardship of having to pay $25
or $30 or $35 or $40 or $50 as a minimum rent for the use of their
unit, and in addition to the utilities.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to return briefly for a moment
to the issue of permanent versus temporary housing. The gentleman
raised the issue in his remarks that it is difficult to justify to the
hundreds of people who may be waiting, who are willing and anxious to
occupy the housing and pay $25, where an individual who may be fully
competent of paying is paying nothing; that this bill then sets in
motion a minimum requirement that just like a homeowner, they must make
some contribution toward their shelter.
It is not that we are going to be callous. We are going to look at
their individual situation, and if they have a problem, tell us about
it. Sure, we might waive the rent requirement for a month or two while
they get back on their feet, but again, this is not a permanent
situation.
The gentleman earlier said that public housing should be permanent.
There could be no more significant philosophic difference on this issue
than that single point. Taxpayers will agree to help a person who is
having a bad day and say to them, ``We will help you with social
programs, with shelter, whatever it takes to get you back on your feet,
but we are not going to pay for a retirement community where you refuse
to take actions to improve your own circumstance.''
Tolerance is fine, help is fine, but saying to someone that they make
no contribution toward their housing at all, forever, there is a limit
to which taxpayers will not go, and I think we are finding it.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I again yield myself such time
as I may consume, to note that the amendment of the gentlewoman from
New York goes beyond once again where the administration is, because
the administration sets a minimum rent of $25. It also goes beyond,
interestingly, where the Democratic substitute is at right now, and I
would suggest that maybe the Democratic substitute, for those people
who would support this amendment, perhaps they would want to amend
their substitute now to reflect the gentlewoman's concerns.
The reality is; the reality is that we are asking for a sense of
mutual obligation and responsibility just like we were talking about in
terms of community service and community work; that yes, they will be
helped; yes, they will receive an apartment; yes, they often will
receive their utilities also paid for, but in return we ask for
something. We are going to ask for community service. We are going to
ask them, subject to their ability to pay and their ability to ask for
a hardship exemption if they cannot pay, to pay at least a minimum rent
of between $25 and $50.
{time} 1315
I wonder what kind of a statement that makes. If we say that people
cannot pay that, that that is asking too much, what kind of a statement
does that make to people that are equally poor, have an equally low
income, and are not fortunate enough to be in public housing? They may
be paying not $25 or $50 but they may be paying $200 or $300 or $400
monthly, or maybe more than that, for their apartment to keep a roof
over their heads.
I know the gentleman from Massachusetts had a question. I will be
happy to yield briefly for the gentleman, because again, we both had
equal time. We have limited time here.
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. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think people are objecting, Mr. Chairman, to
the idea that there should be minimum rents. I think what the
gentlewoman from New York is trying to point out is that there are
circumstances in places like Texas, I would venture to guess maybe
Louisiana, I know in Florida, where the monthly payments on welfare are
below $200; in the State of Texas, it is $188; that becomes a
significant portion, and going up to $50 in those circumstances really
can mean whether the child is going to get enough food to eat.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, that is
precisely why we have hardship exemptions which would allow a housing
authority in a special case to say you might not have to pay anything
at all that particular month, but for those people who have the
capacity to pay, that they will pay.
I just want to mention, many people are familiar with PHDAA, an
association of relatively large housing authorities. They went out and
surveyed their membership. About 800 housing authorities, local housing
authorities, charged more than $25. In no case, in no case, none, did
anyone get evicted because of a failure to pay that minimum rent.
So the idea, the concept, that people are going to be thrown out
because they are being asked to pay $25 a month or $30 a month with
hardship exemptions if they have special circumstances is not factually
correct. It
[[Page H2271]]
is not borne out by the evidence. It does identify the division between
the two sides of this debate, between those who say that people ought
to be asked to do what they possibly can, and those people who think
that people ought to be asked to do nothing.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman think that the local
housing authorities are facing budgetary constraints? And this is not
that they do not want to grant exemptions, just that we cannot trust
that they will do that because they are facing fiscal and budgetary
constraints.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. If I can reclaim my time, I think once again
the information that I just provided to this body was that over half of
the membership of large housing authorities who charge minimum rents in
excess of $25, in their experience, universally, not one person was
evicted who was asked to pay minimum rent. In this case, in addition to
that, we have in this bill protections, additional protections,
additional exemptions that can be given to a family in time of
particular need. It is the least that we can ask.
Even the administration, and I would suggest even the Democratic
substitute, acknowledges the fact that a minimum needs to be set, and
it mocks the idea of having a minimum when we say that the minimum
ought to be between zero and $25. For that reason, I would have to
oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez].
The amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?
Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 51.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 51 offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia:
Page 99, after line 11, insert the following new
subsection:
(e) Optional Time Limitation on Occupancy by Families for
PHA's With Waiting Lists of 1 Year or Longer.--
(1) 5-year limitation.--A public housing agency described
in paragraph (2) may, at the option of the agency and on an
agencywide basis, limit the duration of occupancy in public
housing of each family to 60 consecutive months. Occupancy in
public housing occurring before the effective date of this
Act shall not count toward such 60 months.
(2) Applicability only to pha's with waiting lists of 1
year or longer.--A public housing agency described in this
paragraph is an agency that, upon the conclusion of the 60-
month period referred to in paragraph (1) for any family, has
a waiting list for occupancy in public housing dwelling units
that contains a sufficient number of families such that the
last family on such list who will be provided a public
housing dwelling unit will be provided the unit 1 year or
more from such date (based on the turnover rate for public
housing dwelling units of the agency).
(3) Exceptions for working, elderly, and disabled
families.--The provisions of paragraph (1) shall not apply
to--
(A) any family that contains an adult member who, during
the 60-month period referred to in such paragraph, obtains
employment; except that, if at any time during the 12-month
period beginning upon the commencement of such employment,
the family does not contain an adult member who has
employment, the provisions of paragraph (1) shall apply and
the nonconsecutive months during which the family did not
contain an employed member shall be treated for purposes of
such paragraph as being consecutive;
(B) any elderly family; or
(C) any disabled family.
(4) Preferences for families moving to find employment.--A
public housing agency may, in establishing preferences under
section 321(d), provide a preference for any family that--
(A) occupied a public housing dwelling unit owned or
operated by a different public housing agency, but was
limited in the duration of such occupancy by reason of
paragraph (1) of this subsection; and
(B) is determined by the agency to have moved to the
jurisdiction of the agency to obtain employment.
(5) Preferences for families moving to find employment.--A
public housing agency may, in establishing preferences under
section 321(d), provide a preference for any family that--
(A) occupied a public housing dwelling unit owned or
operated by a different public housing agency, but was
limited in the duration of such occupancy by reason of
paragraph (1) of this subsection; and
(B) is determined by the agency to have moved to the
jurisdiction of the agency to obtain employment.
(5) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the
following definitions shall apply:
(A) Employment.--The term ``employment'' means employment
in a position that--
(i) is not a job training or work program required under a
welfare program; and
(ii) involves an average of 20 or more hours of work per
week.
(B) Welfare program.--The term ``welfare program'' means a
program for aid or assistance under a State program funded
under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (as in
effect before or after the effective date of the amendments
made by section 103(a) of the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, Federal low-income housing
assistance programs were originally designed to be transitional,
helping people find temporary, decent shelter. They were never intended
to be permanent. The reality today, though, is that many families know
no other experience than a public housing environment.
Today, in too many cases this housing assistance is creating reverse
incentives for its beneficiaries to improve their situation and become
self-sufficient. According to HUD, 40 percent of the residents of
public housing leave within 3 years, 31 percent leave within 10 years,
and about one-third live in public housing for more than 10 years.
This amendment will not affect the majority of residents, and it
completely exempts the elderly and the handicapped. But because of the
Federal budget constraints that have been imposed, we cannot increase
the number of federally assisted low-income housing units. It is not
going to happen.
We need to determine how, though, we can justify extending
indefinitely public housing assistance to residents who may be capable
of improving their economic well-being while we deny others who are
equally deserving.
The fact is that there are three times as many people on waiting
lists equally deserving as there are people in public-assisted housing
units. Within my congressional district there is a 2-year waiting list
and it has been closed, leaving thousands of families, equally
deserving, unable to even apply.
This is not fair. Across the country thousands of well-deserving and
eligible families, many spending more than 50 percent of their income
on substandard housing, have been told they have to wait at least 2
years, and then hopefully they can get on a waiting list.
Mr. Chairman, we do not know what the total of such families are,
precisely, but we know that in most cases waiting lists are closed. Let
us be fair. Let us open up access to more deserving families. Across
the Nation 13 million households were eligible to receive Federal
housing assistance last year, slightly more than 4 million. Less than a
third did receive such assistance.
The amendment that I am offering gives local housing authorities the
option, the option, it is up to them, to impose a 5-year time limit on
those individuals and families who are not elderly, not disabled, and
who are not already employed at least 20 hours a week. The amendment
builds on the self-sufficiency contract that is part of this bill.
Adoption of this amendment is going to enable local housing
authorities to use an incentive to encourage tenants to use assisted
housing in the way it was originally intended. Since housing assistance
to some tenants could be limited to 5 years, a higher number of rental
units can be recycled more frequently. Publicly assisted housing can be
more accessible to more people.
It is the fairest thing we can do. I urge support for the amendment.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the gentleman from Virginia
needs to be complimented by this body. There are few Members who are
more active in the area of housing, who understand the consequences of
bad housing, than the gentleman from Virginia who has in his background
experience at the local level in dealing with housing authorities and
with assisted housing.
The gentleman's points are valid points. The wait lists are long. The
[[Page H2272]]
amount of people that are there in public housing for a generation,
permanently, are too great. In fact, I think what the gentleman's
amendment seeks to do is to end the sense of generations being in
public housing. It is a statement that public housing should not be
considered a way of life, but sort of a step up or transition to self-
sufficiency, in an effort to try and recycle that benefit so as many
Americans as possible can use it in their time of need.
Unfortunately, the way the system works now, when a family moves into
public housing there is not much incentive for them to move back out,
back into the system, because we do not deal with the root causes of
poverty. We just deal with the symptom of shelter. In that sense,
because there is no incentive or no time limitation, no encouragement
to move through the system, there are literally millions of Americans
that are waiting and do not have the benefit of having a subsidized
unit.
I wanted to just, if I could, yield to the gentleman from Virginia,
if he could just speak to exactly the tenants that might be affected by
this. Would it be just anybody? Would it be seniors and elderly? I
wonder if he can just describe that.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, no seniors would be affected, no
people who are disabled, no one who would have difficulty in achieving
an income. There are a lot of people in assisted housing that simply do
not have the ability to support themselves because of disabilities, or
because of age or whatever. This only applies to families that are able
bodied, that have been able to use assisted housing for 5 years, and it
also only applies, I would emphasize to the chairman and thank him for
his kind words, it only applies if there are waiting lists.
If there are no waiting lists, in other words, if there are no
equally deserving families waiting to use that unit, it does not apply,
so that it takes no assisted housing units off the market. All it does
is to expand assisted housing to more people who are equally deserving.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I thank the gentleman. Let me say, Mr.
Chairman, I think this is a very valid, very progressive amendment. I
think the gentleman speaks to some of the concerns that many of us have
in terms of assuring that more Americans have the benefit of public
housing.
I should say, I am concerned a bit about the fact that we were not
able to move last year's bill through conference to the President's
desk for signature. I think we tried to certainly develop some broad
reforms that boldly moved forward and helped to transform the entire
population in public housing.
I am a little concerned about the amendment offered by the gentleman.
While I think it is a very good amendment, I am only concerned that it
not be sort of veto bait, or it would stop the momentum of the reforms
we have in this bill, because we are trying so desperately in this bill
to create that sense of self-sufficiency, self-reliance, of building
work skills, of transitioning back to the work force where people can
have the choice of moving out of public housing and into the work
force, where they make their own choices for housing, employment, and
different choices for their family.
So I just voice that concern, which is not a policy concern, but
really a concern that may affect the ability for us to move this bill
through the Chamber, given what I anticipate might be the opposition by
some Members from the Democratic side of the aisle and potentially over
in the other body, and perhaps in the White House.
I just lay that out there as a potential concern. At the same time, I
want to compliment the gentleman from Virginia for his work on this
amendment, for his work on housing in general, for his sense that
public housing ought to be a place where there are law-abiding people,
where we do not tolerate failure and do not tolerate crime, and it is
integrated into the community, and is looked upon not as something that
people run away from or look the other way from, but in fact as a
magnet to help strengthen the community.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr.
Chairman, so it is the gentleman's considered judgment that even though
this amendment might pass in the House, that it might jeopardize final
enactment of this bill?
If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, that is an important
consideration. I want to hear from my colleague, the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], on the bill, but I will respond
subsequently.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to just acknowledge the fine work
that my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], has done
on housing and a number of other issues in his career in the Congress.
I appreciate it, and have worked very closely with him on a number of
issues.
This is one where we have a very, very strong disagreement in terms
of the ultimate resolution or consequences that this amendment could
bring down upon what I believe are some of the most poor and vulnerable
people in this country.
While I think he does this with the best instincts to try to prod
people to go back to work, I think the difficulties that this could
ultimately impose on the poorest people in this country are really
almost unimaginable, when I think of the innovation and creativity that
this body has come up with over the course of the last few days on this
housing bill alone, to find every way possible to punish the poor, in
the thought that somehow if we punish them enough that they will
finally work their way out of poverty.
{time} 1330
That is ultimately the goal of these amendments. It is not just this
amendment. It is the amendment to go minimum rents $25 to $50. It is a
very tough amendment to argue against. My colleagues say there is a lot
of very poor people that are on welfare. They get $188 a month, going
up to $50, that is going to take away some of their food. My colleagues
say, no, if we raise that minimum rent, boy, we will get them to go to
work; let us go out and kick out all the poor people.
In this bill we are going to go from 75 percent targeting to people
with 30 percent of median incomes or less. That is the very poor people
of the country. That is the vast majority of people that live in public
housing, the vast majority of people that get section 8 vouchers. And
yet what we are going to do is say, no, with the rate, the way to fix
the public housing programs is to jack up the rents on those people
that are there, and then what we are going to do is bring in a lot
wealthier people to occupy the units.
It is a brave new world we are establishing. Boy oh boy, I will bet
that sooner or later we are going to have public housing that looks
terrific. The only trouble is no poor people are going to live in it.
What we are going to end up with is a system where we have made
ourselves look good and we can walk around and boast about the fact
that we have gotten all these work incentives for the poor which
basically take a cattle prod to the poor. And then what we are going to
do, because the justification of actually lowering the dollar amounts
on how much goes into the housing bill is because of the budget
agreement, which is an argument we went through late last evening.
The truth of the matter is we are going to spend under this budget
agreement $35 billion on capital gains tax reductions. So there is an
incentive. We have an incentive for the rich to get richer by giving
them an incentive to get richer by lowering their taxes. But the way we
are going to get the poor to work harder is to get the cattle prod out
and give them a little jab. That is essentially what this bill does.
That is effectively what I think the ultimate resolution of this
amendment will be, that we are going to then go out, if we look at the
facts, it would be one thing if we had millions of people in public
housing who were just sitting there languishing.
The amendment, I believe, addresses a nonexistent problem. The median
stay of households in public housing is 4 years. Most households, over
71 percent, live in public housing less than 10 years. And 40 percent
stay less than 3 years. Those who remain longer are
[[Page H2273]]
generally the elderly and disabled. I am sure that we could go out, and
I am sure the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] has found individual
cases where there is an exemption. That should not be. But to try and
suggest that at a period of time where we have a new welfare reform
bill which is going to throw people off of welfare, where we have a
legal immigrant program which is essentially going to deny legal
immigrants even SSI benefits, and then we are going to come back and
now say we are going to take away your housing, I mean, what are we
going to do?
Then we have also cut the homeless budget by 25 percent. So what we
end up with is people on the street. Then everybody drives around in
their cars and they look around at all the people on the street and
think, gosh, that is terrible. My goodness, this homeless situation is
terrible in America, and, boy, I wish those people down in Washington
would pass some laws to take care of homelessness because this is a
shame.
I mean, Mr. Chairman, ultimately it is unpopular for us to stand up
here and fight on all these issues. It sounds like we are defending the
status quo. But underneath the status quo is a basic fundamental
judgment that we say we are going to take care of poor and vulnerable
people. If they want to castigate us as looking like all we are trying
to maintain is the status quo because we try to stand up for very poor
and vulnerable people, so be it. But that is what the value judgment
is. And I am proud to stand with it.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, we have been debating the housing bill now for quite a
few days. And it seems like we spend most of our time, probably 99
percent of our time, debating two versions of government housing. For
those of us who believe that more houses and better houses could be
produced in a free market and in a free society, it is a bit
frustrating. But the debate goes on.
I sincerely believe that everybody in the debate has the best of
motivation, the desire is to be compassionate and to help poor people
get homes. The tragedy is that we have been doing this for a good many
years and have had very little success and this attempt now, again well
motivated, to change the management of the housing program to a more
local management program really leaves a lot to be desired.
On one side of the aisle we find out that the biggest complaint is
that we do not have enough money, and the complaint is that the budget
has been greatly reduced. But the way I read the figures, the numbers
are going up over $5 billion this year, so there is going to be a lot
more money in this HUD program compared to last. It is said on the
other side that we are going to save $100 million in management at the
same time we are spending a lot more money. Much has been said about
how do we protect the rights of the individuals receiving public
housing, and I have recognized that this is a very serious concern. Yet
when we have a government program, it is virtually impossible to really
honor and respect. And straightforward protection of individual rights
is very difficult.
I am concerned about the victims' rights, those people who lose their
income, who lose their job because of government spending and
government programs. It is said that we are trying very hard to take
money from the rich and give it to the poor so the poor have houses.
But quite frankly, I am convinced that most of the taxation comes from
poor people. We have a regressive tax system. We have a monetary system
where inflation hurts the poor more than the rich. And there is a
transfer of wealth to government housing programs.
Unfortunately, everybody agrees the poor are not getting houses. And
so many of the wealthy benefit from these programs. It is the rich
beneficiaries, those who receive the rents and those who get to build
the buildings are the most concerned that this government housing
program continues.
Until we recognize the failure of government programs, I think we are
going to continue to do the wrong things for a long time to come
because there is no evidence on either side that we are really
challenging the concept of public housing. There are two visions of one
type of program on government housing. Some day somewhere along the
line in this House we have to get around to debating the vision of a
free society, a free society with a free market and low taxes, and a
sound monetary system will provide more houses for the poor than any
other system.
Much has been said about the corporate welfare and much has been
recognized that corporations do benefit. But I am on the record very
clearly that I would not endorse anything where a corporation or the
wealthy get direct benefits from these government programs, whether it
is the housing program or Eximbank or whatever.
I am also very cautious to define corporate welfare somewhat
differently than others. Because when we give somebody a tax break and
allow them to keep some of their own money, this is not welfare. It is
when we take money from the poor people and allow it to gravitate into
the hands of the wealthy, that is the welfare that has to be addressed
and that is the part that we seem to fail to look at endlessly whether
it is the housing program or any other program.
It is true, I think that it is very possible for all of us to have a
vision which is designed to be compassionate and concerned about the
injustice in the system. I do not challenge the views of anyone, but
neither should my motivations be challenged because I come down on the
side of saying that a free society and a constitutional government
would not accept any of these programs because they have not worked and
they continue to fail.
The real cost of this program and all programs unfairly falls on the
poor people. Yet we continue endlessly to do this and we never suggest
that maybe, maybe there is an alternative to what we are doing. We have
so many amendments tinkering with how we protect the rights of the
poor. I think that inevitably is going to fail because we are not smart
enough to tinker with the work requirements.
Quite frankly, I have been supportive of a work requirement as an
agreement to come into public housing, very, very reluctantly and not
enthusiastically, because I am convinced that the management of a work
program of 8 hours a month is going to outcost everything that we are
doing.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I would like to
simply address something the gentleman from Texas said a moment ago. He
said that while if we lower taxes, if we had lower interest rates, if
we changed our general economics, you would do a lot for housing for
the poor. Maybe and maybe not. I am not going to address that.
The fact of the matter is that whatever we do in our general
policies, maybe eventually if we change them in the right direction, I
tend not to agree with the gentleman as to what the right direction is,
maybe eventually we would be providing, the private sector would be
building more housing for the poor. It would be very nice if that were
so and if that could be made so.
But the fact is that today in many, many areas of the country, maybe
in the whole country, I do not know, but certainly in many areas of the
country, it is simply impossible for the private sector without subsidy
to produce housing affordable by low income working people, not to
mention by people who may be on public assistance or on SSI or disabled
or what have you.
It simply is impossible in many areas of the country today for the
private sector, and they will tell you that, any builder in New York or
any place, in many places, they will tell you that given the cost of
building, the cost of land, the cost of money, the cost of labor, et
cetera, they cannot build housing other than for upper income people
and maybe the top of the middle class, certainly not for low income
people.
As long as that is true, we are going to need government subsidized
housing programs for low income and moderate income people. That was
the basic idea of the Housing Act of 1937. That is still the basic idea
of public policy today. I hope it remains so, that it is ultimately our
responsibility, as a collective people represented through government,
to help those who, given their best efforts, cannot help themselves.
Should we require their best efforts? Of course. But for those who
may be
[[Page H2274]]
working at minimum wage jobs or even at jobs that pay $10 an hour, $11
an hour and cannot afford housing in the private market, we should help
them. It is our duty to help them, to the extent that they cannot help
themselves, because everybody has a right, assuming they contribute
what they can, to food and clothing and shelter. I would add health
care.
Public housing may have been conceived in 1937 initially. I was not
around. It may have been conceived initially as temporary until the
Depression was over, until things changed. But the fact is that we need
public housing today and we need it on a permanent basis for many, many
people who cannot and will not be able to earn enough money to get out
of it, to pay for decent housing in the private sector.
For working people, this amendment is a bad idea if it were applied
to them, but there are also people who are not working. What about
someone who is 45 years old and is disabled? We just passed welfare
reform. Under the welfare reform bill, people are mandatorily kicked
off the welfare rolls after 5 years.
Now, we did not pass sufficient job training funding to enable these
people, all of them or most of them, to get decent jobs. We did not
pass sufficient child care funding to enable single mothers with
children, all of them or most of them, to be able to take care, to have
someplace secure to put their kids in a decent environment when they go
to work. Those things we did not do. They are too expensive.
Now to add that someone who is on welfare, who is trying to get off
welfare, who is trying to get a job and we have a 4.9-percent official
unemployment rate in this country, the lowest it has been in decades,
but what is really a 12-percent unemployment rate, if we count the
people who are not officially in the job market because they have been
discouraged, they could not find a job for 6 months or 8 months or 1
year and stop looking, for the people who never got into it because
they have no marketable skills where they dropped out of high school
and they are on street corners hustling or something, if we count those
who are employed part time when they need full-time jobs, the real
unemployment rate in terms of people who need jobs, want jobs and
cannot get them is probably closer to 12 percent.
As long as that is true, until we find a way of telling Mr. Greenspan
that when we have higher economic growth, it is a good thing, not a
terrible thing, that creating more jobs or higher wages is a good
thing, not a bad thing, until we change those policies, until we can
generate jobs for whoever wants them, we have a need for welfare
programs. We have a need for low income housing programs without time
cutoffs and certainly that goes for working people.
So let us address those problems. Because what happens under the
Moran amendment to someone who may not be working, is trying to find a
job and cannot and is thrown off welfare and is thrown out of their
home?
Mr. Chairman, I submit this is not a very well targeted amendment,
although well intentioned.
{time} 1345
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that, first, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], be given 3
minutes to respond to some of the issues that have been brought up and
perhaps be able to work out this amendment with the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Lazio].
I also would have a question of the gentleman from New York with
regard to what the gentleman's intentions are for the rest of the day,
if in fact this amendment can be dealt with in the next few minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Moran] be given 3 additional minutes to speak in addition to the time
he has already spent?
There was no objection.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, would it be appropriate
if we could clarify with the gentleman from New York what the intent of
the chairman would be for the next half-hour or so?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] has the floor.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, may I be recognized for a
unanimous-consent request?
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] yield for
a unanimous-consent request?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman for a
unanimous-consent request.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I was
going to ask for a unanimous consent to give us additional time, but if
I can take some of the gentleman's time, I will be glad to extend that
if he needs additional time.
It is my intention that we rise in about 10 or 15 minutes, or 2 p.m.,
to conduct the other business of the House and that we reconvene.
I know the gentleman is enthusiastically looking forward to finishing
this bill, and we are hopeful of addressing it again tomorrow and I
hope we can wrap it up tomorrow.
I think the gentleman's amendment which might be next might be best
held off until tomorrow. I am happy to start it now, but I think for
continuity purposes, the gentleman from Massachusetts may want to have
his amendment heard tomorrow.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. If the gentleman from Virginia will
yield, but the only concern I have is that sometimes what we might see
happen is not get to this targeting amendment tomorrow but rather
sometime on Tuesday, prior to when the vast majority of the membership
comes back.
I know that the floor manager over there, from the office of the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], would never think of doing such a
thing, but nevertheless we might fall into that category, which would
be unfortunate because I do think this gets to the heart of the debate.
So I want to work out with the chairman some assurance that we would
have an opportunity to debate this.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I cannot imagine that virtually
every Member on this side of the aisle would not want to be present to
hear the gentleman from Massachusetts make his case on his amendment,
so I think the gentleman's concern is probably unfounded.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
strike the requisite number of words, at which time I think we would
conclude debate on this amendment. That would be my purpose.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, first of all, as the gentleman
from Massachusetts suggested, there are some issues that need to be
cleared up.
My two friends and colleagues on my side have entered a good deal of
rhetorical information into this debate. Some of it was not specific to
this particular amendment, though, I would suggest. In the first place,
we talk about punishing low-income families, and I would suggest to the
gentleman from Massachusetts that while there are 1 million low-income
families who are in publicly assisted housing, there are three times
that many who are equally low-income who are not in publicly assisted
housing. And if we are talking about punishing people, those people are
effectively being punished by being denied assisted housing, and that
is the purpose of this amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would point out briefly
that that gets to the heart of this debate, and that is ultimately what
H.R. 2 is about, is picking up the pieces after we have cut the housing
budget in this country last year with no debate, no hearings, from $28
to $20 billion.
When we do that, then ultimately we are not going to ever get to
meeting the needs of the millions of families that the gentleman is
talking about. But the gentleman's amendment is not going to do
anything more to meet those needs.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman for his comments on the underlying bill. They are not
particularly
[[Page H2275]]
pertinent to this particular amendment because this amendment opens up
access to people. It only applies when there are equally deserving
people who have not had the access to assisted housing, many of whom
are paying 50 percent of their income.
I would suggest to my colleague from New York, when he talks about
handicapped people, and so on, being affected, they are all exempted
from this amendment, the handicapped, the elderly. There are a number
of exceptions. I would suggest to my colleague to read the amendment
and he will be assured of that fact.
Now, let me address myself to the comments of the chairman. The
chairman suggested that passage of this bill might be jeopardized by
inclusion of this amendment. I think this amendment might very well
pass within the House, but he may very well be right and I would accept
his judgment in terms of enactment. I want this bill to be enacted, and
I would just like to take a couple of minutes to tell my colleagues
why.
I lost a very close friend in Alexandria who was a police officer. He
was shot in a public housing project at a place, a unit, which had been
dealing drugs for years. It was an intergenerational business,
apparently. We were helpless to do anything about it. And I will never
forget his wife at the hospital looking up to me and saying how will I
ever tell his two sons that daddy will never come home again. And the
reason that happened is because we did not act responsibly on publicly
assisted housing.
This does. The many screening and eviction procedures that are
allowed under this bill are absolutely necessary, and the people that
they benefit the most, the most, are people living in publicly assisted
communities. They desperately need the housing authority to exercise
responsible judgments and to exclude people who are going to tear down
the quality of life for a lot of them, to exclude criminals and drug
addicts and people who are drug dealers. That needs to be done. It will
be done by this bill.
There are a number of other provisions in this bill which make a lot
of sense. They are more important than this particular provision, as
important as I think this is. I will leave this at this, this
amendment, but I would ask the gentleman from New York, if I do
withdraw it at this time, would the gentleman attempt to get some type
of pilot demonstration program within the conference that might enable
us to get some experience on how such an amendment would work?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I think that the gentleman's
idea and obviously his passion are right on the mark, and I will do
whatever I can to work in conference, if this bill is adopted, and I am
hopeful it will, with the VA's strong support, that we will be able to
begin to make some headway and create some type of demonstration
project so that we can establish that this works just the way the
gentleman says it will.
I will also commit to the gentleman that if for any reason that does
not bear fruit, and I am hopeful that it will and I will fight for it,
that we will hold hearings, my committee will hold hearings and I hope
the gentleman will testify before that hearing.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. With that assurance, Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. Moran] is withdrawn.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I had intended to come and speak in favor of the
amendment. I would now speak in favor of the demonstration project idea
if the amendment is to be withdrawn. I was the chairman of the Missouri
Housing Development Commission for some time. We worked with housing
authorities. We had even in 1985 a billion dollars in bonded
obligations to assist with housing.
I think we stand here today with a housing program that is well-
intentioned but has failed. It has become a place where people go and
stay not because of disability or age or infirmity, but because of no
sense of being able to leave that system or having to leave that
system.
I think the idea of rotating people in and out of public housing,
being sure that all people have access to public housing that would
qualify for public housing, and also effectively giving notice to
people who move into public housing on the first day that they are
likely not there to stay, that there is some end in sight to their
being in that particular subsidized environment, is a positive aspect.
I think the problems we see in public housing with crime, with a lack
of role model, with a life based on that kind of dependence on a
government program, is largely eliminated by the concept that the
gentleman from Virginia has offered as an amendment and now offers as a
pilot program, that we look to see what would happen if, in fact,
people are on a list, not only a waiting list for public housing, but a
list that would have some opportunity to really become part of that
system, a system where people are moving in and out as they move toward
more and more independence; a system which, as the bill of the
gentleman from New York, allows people to seek greater economic
opportunity without being penalized for that opportunity by agreeing to
a fixed rent instead of 30 percent of their income. Whatever their
income is, of course, they would still have that option.
I think we see a housing program, again, that was well-intentioned,
that has not worked as it should work. It is time to make that program
work better. And under this proposal, this is not a proposal that
eliminates funding for public housing. In fact, this is a proposal that
substantially increases funding for public housing. It just makes a
commitment for housing that works better; makes a commitment for
housing that does not lead to the many problems that people that are in
public housing today have been victims of.
I think the bill is a good bill. I thought the amendment was a good
amendment. I want to speak in favor of the gentleman's idea that there
be a pilot in this bill that would allow that to become part of what we
are trying to do in housing and let us see if it works, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman
for his remarks, his insight and for sharing his experience with the
Missouri Housing Authority with us. I thank the gentleman for his
remarks.
The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments to title II, the
Clerk will designate title III.
The text of title III is as follows:
TITLE III--CHOICE-BASED RENTAL HOUSING AND HOMEOWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE FOR
LOW-INCOME FAMILIES
Subtitle A--Allocation
SEC. 301. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE HOUSING ASSISTANCE AMOUNTS.
To the extent that amounts to carry out this title are made
available, the Secretary may enter into contracts with public
housing agencies for each fiscal year to provide housing
assistance under this title.
SEC. 302. CONTRACTS WITH PHA'S.
(a) Condition of Assistance.--The Secretary may provide
amounts under this title to a public housing agency for a
fiscal year only if the Secretary has entered into a contract
under this section with the public housing agency, under
which the Secretary shall provide such agency with amounts
(in the amount of the allocation for the agency determined
pursuant to section 304) for housing assistance under this
title for low-income families.
(b) Use for Housing Assistance.--A contract under this
section shall require a public housing agency to use amounts
provided under this title to provide housing assistance in
any manner authorized under this title.
(c) Annual Obligation of Authority.--A contract under this
title shall provide amounts for housing assistance for 1
fiscal year covered by the contract.
(d) Enforcement of Housing Quality Requirements.--Each
contract under this section shall require the public housing
agency administering assistance provided under the contract--
(1) to ensure compliance, under each housing assistance
payments contract entered into pursuant to the contract under
this section, with the provisions of the housing assistance
payments contract included pursuant to section 351(c)(4); and
(2) to establish procedures for assisted families to notify
the agency of any noncompliance with such provisions.
[[Page H2276]]
SEC. 303. ELIGIBILITY OF PHA'S FOR ASSISTANCE AMOUNTS.
The Secretary may provide amounts available for housing
assistance under this title pursuant to the formula
established under section 304(a) to a public housing agency
only if--
(1) the agency has submitted a local housing management
plan to the Secretary for such fiscal year and applied to the
Secretary for such assistance;
(2) 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;
(3) no member of the board of directors or other governing
body of the agency, or the executive director, has been
convicted of a felony; and
(4) the agency has not been disqualified for assistance
pursuant to title V.
SEC. 304. ALLOCATION OF AMOUNTS.
(a) Formula Allocation.--
(1) In general.--When amounts for assistance under this
title are first made available for reservation, after
reserving amounts in accordance with subsections (b)(3) and
(c), the Secretary shall allocate such amounts, only among
public housing agencies meeting the requirements under this
title to receive such assistance, on the basis of a formula
that is established in accordance with paragraph (2) and
based upon appropriate criteria to reflect the needs of
different States, areas, and communities, using the most
recent data available from the Bureau of the Census of the
Department of Commerce and the comprehensive housing
affordability strategy under section 105 of the Cranston-
Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (or any consolidated
plan incorporating such strategy) for the applicable
jurisdiction. The Secretary may establish a minimum
allocation amount, in which case only the public housing
agencies that, pursuant to the formula, are provided an
amount equal to or greater than the minimum allocation
amount, shall receive an allocation.
(2) Regulations.--The formula under this subsection shall
be established by regulation issued by the Secretary.
Notwithstanding sections 563(a) and 565(a) of title 5, United
States Code, any proposed regulation containing such formula
shall be issued pursuant to a negotiated rulemaking procedure
under subchapter III of chapter 5 of such title and the
Secretary shall establish a negotiated rulemaking committee
for development of any such proposed regulations.
(b) Allocation Considerations.--
(1) Limitation on reallocation for another state.--Any
amounts allocated for a State or areas or communities within
a State that are not likely to be used within the fiscal year
for which the amounts are provided shall not be reallocated
for use in another State, unless the Secretary determines
that other areas or communities within the same State (that
are eligible for amounts under this title) cannot use the
amounts within the same fiscal year.
(2) Effect of receipt of tenant-based assistance for
disabled families.--The Secretary may not consider the
receipt by a public housing agency of assistance under
section 811(b)(1) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act, or the amount received, in approving
amounts under this title for the agency or in determining the
amount of such assistance to be provided to the agency.
(3) Exemption from formula allocation.--The formula
allocation requirements of subsection (a) shall not apply to
any assistance under this title that is approved in
appropriation Acts of uses that the Secretary determines are
incapable of geographic allocation, including amendments of
existing housing assistance payments contracts, renewal of
such contracts, assistance to families that would otherwise
lose assistance due to the decision of the project owner to
prepay the project mortgage or not to renew the housing
assistant payments contract, assistance to prevent
displacement from public or assisted housing or to provide
replacement housing in connection with the demolition or
disposition of public housing, assistance for relocation from
public housing, assistance in connection with protection of
crime witnesses, assistance for conversion from leased
housing contracts under section 23 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before the enactment of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974), and
assistance in support of the property disposition and
portfolio management functions of the Secretary.
(c) Recapture of Amounts.--
(1) Authority.--In each fiscal year, from any budget
authority made available for assistance under this title or
section 8 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 is obligated to a public housing
agency but remains unobligated by the agency upon the
expiration of the 8-month period beginning upon the initial
availability of such amounts for obligation by the agency,
the Secretary may deobligate an amount, as determined by the
Secretary, not exceeding 50 percent of such unobligated
amount.
(2) Use.--The Secretary may reallocate and transfer any
amounts deobligated under paragraph (1) only to public
housing agencies in areas that the Secretary determines have
received less funding than other areas, based on the relative
needs of all areas.
SEC. 305. ADMINISTRATIVE FEES.
(a) Fee for Ongoing Costs of Administration.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish fees for the
costs of administering the choice-based housing assistance
program under this title.
(2) Fiscal year 1998.--
(A) Calculation.--For fiscal year 1998, the fee for each
month for which a dwelling unit is covered by a contract for
assistance under this title shall be--
(i) in the case of a public housing agency that, on an
annual basis, is administering a program for not more than
600 dwelling units, 7.65 percent of the base amount; and
(ii) in the case of an agency that, on an annual basis, is
administering a program for more than 600 dwelling units--
(I) for the first 600 units, 7.65 percent of the base
amount; and
(II) for any additional dwelling units under the program,
7.0 percent of the base amount.
(B) Base amount.--For purposes of this paragraph, the base
amount shall be the higher of--
(i) the fair market rental established under section 8(c)
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) for fiscal year 1993 for a 2-
bedroom existing rental dwelling unit in the market area of
the agency, and
(ii) the amount that is the lesser of (I) such fair market
rental for fiscal year 1994 or (II) 103.5 percent of the
amount determined under clause (i),
adjusted based on changes in wage data or other objectively
measurable data that reflect the costs of administering the
program, as determined by the Secretary. The Secretary may
require that the base amount be not less than a minimum
amount and not more than a maximum amount.
(3) Subsequent fiscal years.--For subsequent fiscal years,
the Secretary shall publish a notice in the Federal Register,
for each geographic area, establishing the amount of the fee
that would apply for public housing agencies administering
the program, based on changes in wage data or other
objectively measurable data that reflect the costs of
administering the program, as determined by the Secretary.
(4) Increase.--The Secretary may increase the fee is
necessary to reflect the higher costs of administering small
programs and programs operating over large geographic areas.
(b) Fee for Preliminary Expenses.--The Secretary shall also
establish reasonable fees (as determined by the Secretary)
for--
(1) the costs of preliminary expenses, in the amount of
$500, for a public housing agency, but only in the first year
that the agency administers a choice-based housing assistance
program under this title, and only if, immediately before the
effective date of this Act, the agency was not administering
a tenant-based rental assistance program under the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect immediately before
such effective date), in connection with its initial
increment of assistance received;
(2) the costs incurred in assisting families who experience
difficulty (as determined by the Secretary) in obtaining
appropriate housing under the programs; and
(3) extraordinary costs approved by the Secretary.
(c) Transfer of Fees in Cases of Concurrent Geographical
Jurisdiction.--In each fiscal year, if any public housing
agency provides tenant-based rental assistance under section
8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 or housing
assistance under this title on behalf of a family who uses
such assistance for a dwelling unit that is located within
the jurisdictional of such agency but is also within the
jurisdiction of another public housing agency, the Secretary
shall take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that the
public housing agency that provides the services for a family
receives all or part of the administrative fee under this
section (as appropriate).
SEC. 306. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated for
providing public housing assistance under this title, such
sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 1998, 2000,
2001, and 2002 to provide amounts for incremental assistance
under this title, for renewal of expiring contracts under
section 302 of this Act and renewal under this title of
expiring contracts for tenant-based rental assistance under
section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in
effect the effective date of the repeal under section 601(b)
of this Act), and for replacement needs for public housing
under title II.
(b) Assistance for Disabled Families.--
(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated, for choice-based housing assistance under
this title to be used in accordance with paragraph (2),
$50,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, and such sums as may be
necessary for each subsequent fiscal year.
(2) Use.--The Secretary shall provide amounts made
available under paragraph (1) to public housing agencies only
for use to provide housing assistance under this title for
nonelderly disabled families (including such families
relocating pursuant to designation of a public housing
development under section 227 or the establishment of
occupancy restrictions in accordance with section 658 of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 and other
nonelderly disabled families who have applied to the agency
for housing assistance under this title).
[[Page H2277]]
(3) Allocation of amounts.--The Secretary shall allocate
and provide amounts made available under paragraph (1) to
public housing agencies as the Secretary determines
appropriate based on the relative levels of need among the
authorities for assistance for families described in
paragraph (1).
(c) Assistance for Witness Relocation.--Of the amounts made
available for choice-based housing assistance under this
title for each fiscal year, the Secretary, in consultation
with the Inspector General, shall make available such sums as
may be necessary for such housing assistance for the
relocation of witnesses in connection with efforts to combat
crime in public and assisted housing pursuant to requests
from law enforcement and prosecutive agencies.
SEC. 307. CONVERSION OF SECTION 8 ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--Any amounts made available to a public
housing agency under a contract for annual contributions for
assistance under section 8 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 have not been
obligated for such assistance by such agency before such
effective date shall be used to provide assistance under this
title, except to the extent the Secretary determines such use
is inconsistent with existing commitments.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any
amounts made available under a contract for housing
constructed or substantially rehabilitated pursuant to
section 8(b)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as
in effect before October 1, 1983.
SEC. 308. RECAPTURE AND REUSE OF ANNUAL CONTRACT PROJECT
RESERVES UNDER CHOICE-BASED HOUSING ASSISTANCE
AND SECTION 8 TENANT-BASED ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.
To the extent that the Secretary determines that the amount
in the reserve account for annual contributions contracts
(for housing assistance under this title or tenant-based
assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act
of 1937) that is under contract with a public housing agency
for such assistance is in excess of the amounts needed by the
agency, the Secretary shall recapture such excess amount. The
Secretary may hold recaptured amounts in reserve until needed
to enter into, amend, or renew contracts under this title or
to amend or renew contracts under section 8 of such Act for
tenant-based assistance with any agency.
Subtitle B--Choice-Based Housing Assistance for Eligible Families
SEC. 321. ELIGIBLE FAMILIES AND PREFERENCES FOR ASSISTANCE.
(a) Low-Income Requirement.--Housing assistance under this
title may be provided only on behalf of a family that--
(1) at the time that such assistance is initially provided
on behalf of the family, is determined by the public housing
agency to be a low-income family; or
(2) qualifies to receive such assistance under any other
provision of Federal law.
(b) Income Targeting.--Of the families initially assisted
under this title by a public housing agency in any year, not
less than 40 percent shall be families whose incomes do not
exceed 30 percent of the area median income, as determined by
the Secretary with adjustments for smaller and larger
families. The Secretary may establish income ceiling higher
or lower than 30 percent of the area median income on the
basis of the Secretary's findings that such variations are
necessary because of unusually high or low family incomes.
(c) Reviews of Family Incomes.--
(1) In general.--Reviews of family incomes for purposes of
this title shall be subject to the provisions of section 904
of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Amendments Act
of 1988 and shall be conducted upon the initial provision of
housing assistance for the family and thereafter not less
than annually.
(2) Procedures.--Each public housing agency administering
housing assistance under this title shall establish
procedures that are appropriate and necessary to ensure that
income data provided to the agency and owners by families
applying for or receiving housing assistance from the agency
is complete and accurate.
(d) Preferences for Assistance.--
(1) Authority to establish.--Any public housing agency that
receives amounts under this title may establish a system for
making housing assistance available on behalf of eligible
families that provides preference for such assistance to
eligible families having certain characteristics.
(2) Content.--Each system of preferences established
pursuant to this subsection 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.
(3) 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.
(e) Portability of Housing Assistance.--
(1) National portability.--An eligible family that is
selected to receive or is receiving assistance under this
title may rent any eligible dwelling unit in any area where a
program is being administered under this title.
Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a public housing
agency may require that any family not living within the
jurisdiction of the public housing agency at the time the
family applies for assistance from the agency shall, during
the 12-month period beginning on the date of initial receipt
of housing assistance made available on behalf of the family
from such agency, lease and occupy an eligible dwelling unit
located within the jurisdiction served by the agency. The
agency for the jurisdiction into which the family moves shall
have the responsibility for administering assistance for the
family.
(2) Source of funding for a family that moves.--For a
family that has moved into the jurisdiction of a public
housing agency and that, at the time of the move, has been
selected to receive, or is receiving, assistance provided by
another agency, the agency for the jurisdiction into which
the family has moved may, in its discretion, cover the cost
of assisting the family under its contract with the Secretary
or through reimbursement from the other agency under that
agency's contract.
(3) Authority to deny assistance to certain families who
move.--A family may not receive housing assistance as
provided under this subsection if the family has moved from a
dwelling unit in violation of the lease for the dwelling
unit.
(4) Funding allocations.--In providing assistance amounts
under this title for public housing agencies for any fiscal
year, the Secretary may give consideration to any reduction
or increase in the number of resident families under the
program of an agency in the preceding fiscal year as a result
of this subsection.
(f) 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 receiving housing assistance who
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.
SEC. 322. RESIDENT CONTRIBUTION.
(a) Amount.--
(1) Monthly rent contribution.--An assisted family shall
contribute on a monthly basis for the rental of an assisted
dwelling unit an amount that the public housing agency
determines is appropriate with respect to the family and the
unit, but which--
(A) shall not be less than the minimum monthly rental
contribution determined under subsection (b); and
(B) shall not exceed the greatest of--
(i) 30 percent of the monthly adjusted income of the
family;
(ii) 10 percent of the monthly income of the family; and
(iii) 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.
(2) Excess rental amount. In any case in which the monthly
rent charged for a dwelling unit pursuant to the housing
assistance payments contract exceeds the applicable payment
standard (established under section 353) for the dwelling
unit, the assisted family residing in the unit shall
contribute (in addition to the amount of the monthly rent
contribution otherwise determined under paragraph (1) for
such family) such entire excess rental amount.
(b) Minimum Monthly Rental Contribution.--
(1) In general.--The public housing agency shall determine
the amount of the minimum monthly rental contribution of an
assisted family (which rent shall include any amount allowed
for utilities), which--
(A) shall be based upon factors including the adjusted
income of the family and any other factors that the agency
considers appropriate;
(B) shall be not less than $25, nor more than $50; and
(C) may be increased annually by the agency, except that no
such annual increase may exceed 10 percent of the amount of
the minimum monthly contribution in effect for the preceding
year.
(2) Hardship provisions.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a public
housing agency shall grant an exemption in whole or in part
from payment of the minimum monthly rental contribution
established under this paragraph to any assisted 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
imposition of the minimum rent; (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 an assisted family requests a
hardship exemption under this paragraph and the public
housing agency reasonably determines the hardship to be of
[[Page H2278]]
a temporary nature, an exemption shall not be granted during
the 90-day period beginning upon the making of a request for
the exemption. An assisted family may not be evicted during
such 90-day period for nonpayment of rent. In such a case, if
the assisted family thereafter demonstrates that the
financial hardship is of a long-term basis, the agency shall
retroactively exempt the family from the applicability of the
minimum rent requirement for such 90-day period.
(c) Treatment of Changes in Rental Contribution.--
(1) Notification of changes.--A public housing agency shall
promptly notify the owner of an assisted dwelling unit of any
change in the resident contribution by the assisted family
residing in the unit that takes effect immediately or at a
later date.
(2) Collection of retroactive changes.--In the case of any
change in the rental contribution of an assisted family that
affects rental payments previously made, the public housing
agency shall collect any additional amounts required to be
paid by the family under such change directly from the family
and shall refund any excess rental contribution paid by the
family directly to the family.
(d) Phase-In of Rent Contribution Increases.--
(1) In General.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), for
any family that is receiving tenant-based rental assistance
under section 8 of the United Stats Housing Act of 1937 upon
the initial applicability of the provisions of this title to
such family, if the monthly contribution for rental of an
assisted dwelling unit to be paid by the family upon such
initial applicability 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 rent contribution requirement
under subsection (b)(1) shall apply to each family described
in paragraph (1) of this subsection, notwithstanding such
paragraph.
SEC. 323. RENTAL INDICATORS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish and issue
rental indicators under this section periodically, but not
less than annually, for existing rental dwelling units that
are eligible dwelling units. The Secretary shall establish
and issue the rental indicators by housing market area (as
the Secretary shall establish) for various sizes and types of
dwelling units.
(b) Amount.--For a market area, the rental indicator
established under subsection (a) for a dwelling unit of a
particular size and type in the market area shall be a dollar
amount that reflects the rental amount for a standard quality
rental unit of such size and type in the market area that is
an eligible dwelling unit.
(c) Effective Date.--The Secretary shall cause the proposed
rental indicators established under subsection (a) for each
market area to be published in the Federal Register with
reasonable time for public comment, and such rental
indicators shall become effective upon the date of
publication in final form in the Federal Register.
(d) Annual Adjustment.--Eash rental indicator in effect
under this section shall be adjusted to be effective on
October 1 of each year to reflect changes, based on the most
recent available data trended so that the indicators will be
current for the year to which they apply, in rents for
existing rental dwelling units of various sizes and types in
the market area suitable for occupancy by families assisted
under this title.
SEC. 324. LEASE TERMS.
Rental assistance may be provided for an eligible dwelling
unit only if the assisted family and the owner of the
dwelling unit enter into a lease for the unit that--
(1) provides for a single lease term of 12 months and
continued tenancy after such term under a periodic tenancy on
a month-to-month basis;
(2) contains terms and conditions specifying that
termination of tenancy during the term of a lease shall be
subject to the provisions set forth in sections 642 and 643;
and
(3) is set forth in the standard form, which is used in the
local housing market area by the owner and applies generally
to any other tenants in the property who are not assisted
families, together with any addendum necessary to include the
many terms required under this section.
A lease may include any addenda appropriate to set forth the
provisions under this title.
SEC. 325. TERMINATION OF TENANCY.
Each housing assistance payments contract shall provide
that the owner shall conduct the termination of tenancy of
any tenant of an assisted dwelling unit under the contract in
accordance with applicable State or local laws, including
providing any notice of termination required under such laws.
SEC. 326. ELIGIBLE OWNERS.
(a) Ownership Entity.--Rental assistance under this title
maybe provided for any eligible dwelling unit for which the
owner is any public agency, private person or entity
(including a cooperative), nonprofit organization, agency of
the Federal Government, or public housing agency.
(b) Ineligible Owners.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), a public
housing agency--
(A) may not enter into a housing assistance payments
contract (or renew an existing contract) covering a dwelling
unit that is owned by an owner who is debarred, suspended, or
subject to limited denial of participation under part 24 of
title 24, Code of Federal Regulations;
(B) may prohibit, or authorize the termination or
suspension of, payment of housing assistance under a housing
assistance payments contract in effect at the time such
debarment, suspension, or limited denial or participation
takes effect.
If the public housing agency takes action under subparagraph
(B), the agency shall take such actions as may be necessary
to protect assisted families who are affected by the action,
which may include the provision of additional assistance
under this title to such families.
(2) Prohibition of sale or rental to related parties.--The
Secretary shall establish guidelines to prevent housing
assistance payments for a dwelling unit that is owned by any
spouse, child, or other party who allows an owner described
in paragraph (1) to maintain control of the unit.
SEC. 327. SELECTION OF DWELLING UNITS.
(a) Family Choice.--The determination of the dwelling unit
in which an assisted family resides and for which housing
assistance is provided under this title shall be made solely
by the assisted family, subject to the provisions of this
title and any applicable law.
(b) Deed Restrictions.--Housing assistance may not be used
in any manner that abrogates any local deed restriction that
applies to any housing consisting of 1 to 4 dwelling units.
Nothing in this section may be construed to affect the
provisions of applicability of the Fair Housing Act.
SEC. 328. ELIGIBLE DWELLING UNITS.
(a) In General.--A dwelling unit shall be an eligible
dwelling unit for purposes of this title only if the public
housing agency to provide housing assistance for the dwelling
unit determines that the dwelling unit--
(1) is an existing dwelling unit that is not located within
a nursing home or the grounds of any penal, reformatory,
medical, mental, or similar public or private institution;
and
(2) complies--
(A) in the case of a dwelling unit 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
(B) in the case of a dwelling unit located in a
jurisdiction which does not have in effect laws, regulations,
standards, or codes described in subparagraph (A), with the
housing quality standards established under subsection (c).
Each public housing agency providing housing assistance shall
identify, in the local housing management plan for the
agency, whether the agency is utilizing the standard under
subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (2).
(b) Determinations.--
(1) In general.--A public housing agency shall make the
determinations required under subsection (a) pursuant to an
inspection of the dwelling unit conducted before any
assistance payment is made for the unit.
(2) Expeditious inspection.--Inspections of dwelling units
under this subsection shall be made before the expiration of
the 15-day period beginning upon a request by the resident or
landlord to the public housing agency. The performance of the
agency in meeting the 15-day inspection deadline shall be
taken into account in assessing the performance of the
agency.
(c) Federal Housing Quality Standards.--The Secretary shall
establish housing quality standards under this subsection
that ensure that assisted 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 232(b). The Secretary
shall differentiate between major and minor violations of
such standards.
(d) Annual Inspections.--Each public housing agency
providing housing assistance shall make an annual inspection
of each assisted dwelling unit during the term of the housing
assistance payments contracts for the unit to determine
whether the unit is maintained in accordance with the
requirements under subsection (a)(2). The agency shall retain
the records of the inspection for a reasonable time and shall
make the records available upon request to the Secretary, the
Inspector General for the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and any auditor conducting an audit under
section 541.
(e) Inspection Guidelines.--The Secretary shall establish
procedural guidelines and performance standards to facilitate
inspections of dwelling units and conform such inspections
with practices utilized in the private housing market. Such
guidelines and standards shall take into consideration
variations in local laws and practices of public housing
agencies and shall provide flexibility to authorities
appropriate to facilitate efficient provision of assistance
under this title.
[[Page H2279]]
(f) Rule of Construction.--This section may not be
construed to prevent the provision of housing assistance in
connection with supportive services for elderly or disabled
families.
SEC. 329. HOMEOWNERSHIP OPTION.
(a) In General.--A public housing agency providing housing
assistance under this title may provide homeownership
assistance to assist eligible families to purchase a dwelling
unit (including purchase under lease-purchase homeownership
plans).
(b) Requirements.--A public housing agency providing
homeownership assistance under this section shall, as a
condition of an eligible family receiving such assistance,
require the family to--
(1) demonstrate that the family has sufficient income from
employment or other sources (other than public assistance),
as determined in accordance with requirements established by
the agency; and
(2) meet any other initial or continuing requirements
established by the public housing agency.
(c) Downpayment Requirement.--
(1) In general.--A public housing agency may establish
minimum downpayment requirements, if appropriate, in
connection with loans made for the purchase of dwelling units
for which homeownership assistance is provided under this
section. If the agency establishes a minimum downpayment
requirement, 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, subject to the requirement of paragraph (2).
(2) Direct family contribution.--In purchasing housing
pursuant to this section subject to a downpayment
requirement, 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.
(d) Ineligibility Under Other Programs.--A family may not
receive homeownership assistance pursuant to this section
during any period when assistance is being provided for the
family under other Federal homwownership assistance programs,
as determined by the Secretary, including assistance under
the HOME Investment Partnerships Act, the Homeownership and
Opportunity Through HOPE Act, title II of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1987, and section 502 of the
Housing Act of 1949.
SEC. 330. ASSISTANCE FOR RENTAL OR MANUFACTURED HOMES.
(a) Authority.--Nothing in this title may be construed to
prevent a public housing agency from providing housing
assistance under this title on behalf of a low-income family
for the rental of--
(1) a manufactured home that is the principal residence of
the family and the real property on which the home is
located; or
(2) the real property on which is located a manufactured
home, which is owned by the family and is the principal
residence of the family.
(b) Assistance for Certain Families Owning Manufactured
Homes.--
(1) Authority.--Notwithstanding section 351 or any other
provision of this title, a public housing agency that
receives amounts under a contract under section 302 may enter
into a housing assistance payment contract to make assistance
payments under this title to a family that owns a
manufactured home, but only as provided in paragraph (2).
(2) Limitations.--In the case only of a low-income family
that owns a manufactured home, rents the real property on
which it is located, and to whom housing assistance under
this title has been made available for the rental of such
property, the public housing agency making such assistance
available shall enter into a contract to make housing
assistance payments under this title directly to the family
(rather than to the owner of such real property) if--
(A) the owner of the real property refuses to enter into a
contract to receive housing assistance payments pursuant to
section 351(a);
(B) the family was residing in such manufactured home on
such real property at the time such housing assistance was
initially made available on behalf of the family;
(C) the family provides such assurances to the agency, as
the Secretary may require, to ensure that amounts from the
housing assistance payments are used for rental of the real
property; and
(D) the rental of the real property otherwise complies with
the requirements for assistance under this title.
A contract pursuant to this subsection shall be subject to
the provisions of section 351 and any other provisions
applicable to housing assistance payments contracts under
this title, except that the Secretary may provide such
exceptions as the Secretary considers appropriate to
facilitate the provisions of assistance under this
subsection.
Subtitle C--Payment of Housing Assistance on Behalf of Assisted
Families
SEC. 351. HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS CONTRACTS.
(a) In General.--Each public housing agency that received
amounts under a contract under section 302 may enter into
housing assistance payments contracts with owners of existing
dwelling units to make housing assistance payments to such
owners in accordance with this title.
(b) PHA Acting As Owner.--A public housing agency may enter
into a housing assistance payments contract to make housing
assistance payments under this title to itself (or any agency
or instrumentality thereof) as the owner of dwelling units
(other than public housing), and the agency shall be subject
to the same requirements that are applicable to other owners,
except that the determinations under section 328(a) and
354(b) shall be made by a competent party not affiliated with
the agency, and the agency shall be responsible for any
expenses of such determinations.
(c) Provisions.--Each housing assistance payments contract
shall--
(1) have a term of not more than 12 months;
(2) require that the assisted dwelling unit may be rented
only pursuant to a lease that complies with the requirements
of section 324;
(3) comply with the requirements of sections 325, 642, and
643 (relating to termination of tenancy);
(4) require the owner to maintain the dwelling unit in
accordance with the applicable standards under section
328(a)(2); and
(5) provide that the screening and selection of eligible
families for assisted dwelling units shall be the function of
the owner.
SEC 352. AMOUNT OF MONTHLY ASSISTANCE PAYMENT.
(a) Units Having Gross Rent Exceeding Payment Standard.--In
the case of a dwelling unit bearing a gross rent that exceeds
the payment standard established under section 353 for a
dwelling unit of the applicable size and located in the
market area in which such assisted dwelling unit is located,
the amount of the monthly assistance payment shall be the
amount by which such payment standard exceeds the amount of
the resident contribution determined in accordance with
section 322(a)(1).
(b) Shopping Incentive for Units Having Gross Rent Not
Exceeding Payment Standard.--In the case of an assisted
family renting an eligible dwelling unit bearing a gross rent
that does not exceed the payment standard established under
section 353 for a dwelling unit of the applicable size and
located in the market area in which such assisted dwelling
unit is located, the following requirements shall apply:
(1) Amount of monthly assistance payment.--The amount of
the monthly assistance payment for housing assistance under
this title on behalf of the assisted family shall be the
amount by which the gross rent for the dwelling unit exceeds
the amount of the resident contribution.
(2) Escrow of shopping incentive savings.--An amount equal
to 50 percent of the difference between payment standard and
the gross rent for the dwelling unit shall be placed in an
interest bearing escrow account on behalf of such family on a
monthly basis by the public housing agency. Amounts in the
escrow account shall be made available to the assisted family
on an annual basis.
(3) Deficit reduction.--The public housing agency making
housing assistance payments on behalf of such assisted family
in a fiscal year shall reserve from amounts made available to
the agency for assistance payments for such fiscal year an
amount equal to the amount described in paragraph (2). At the
end of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall recapture any
such amounts reserved by public housing agencies and such
amounts shall be covered into the General Fund of the
Treasury of the United States.
For purposes of this section, in the case of a family
receiving homeownership assistance under section 329, the
term ``gross rent'' shall mean the homeownership costs to the
family as determined in accordance with guidelines of the
Secretary.
SEC. 353. PAYMENT STANDARDS.
(a) Establishment.--Each public housing agency providing
housing assistance under this title shall establish payment
standards under this section for various areas, and sizes and
types of dwelling units, for use in determining the amount of
monthly housing assistance payment to be provided on behalf
of assisted families.
(b) Use of Rental Indicators.--The payment standard for
each size and type of housing for each market area shall be
an amount that is not less than 80 percent, and not greater
than 120 percent, of the rental indicator established under
section 323 for such size and type for such area.
(c) Review.--If the Secretary determines, at any time, that
a significant percentage of the assisted families who are
assisted by a public housing agency and are occupying
dwelling units of a particular size are paying more than 30
percent of their adjusted incomes for rent, the Secretary
shall review the payment standard established by the agency
for such size dwellings. If, pursuant to the review, the
Secretary determines that such payment standard is not
appropriate to serve the needs of the low-income population
of the jurisdiction served by the agency (taking into
consideration rental costs in the area), as identified in the
approved community improvement plan of the agency, the
Secretary may require the public housing agency to modify the
payment standard.
SEC. 354. REASONABLE RENTS.
(a) Establishment.--The rent charged for a dwelling unit
for which rental assistance is provided under this title
shall be established pursuant to negotiation and agreement
between the assisted family and the owner of the dwelling
unit.
[[Page H2280]]
(b) Reasonableness.--
(1) Determination.--A public housing agency providing
rental assistance under this title for a dwelling unit shall,
before commencing assistance payments for a unit (with
respect to initial contract rents and any rent revisions),
determine whether the rent charged for the unit exceeds the
rents charged for comparable units in the applicable private
unassisted market.
(2) Unreasonable rents.--If the agency determines that the
rent charged for a dwelling unit exceeds such comparable
rents, the agency shall--
(A) inform the assisted family renting the unit that such
rent exceeds the rents for comparable unassisted units in the
markets; and
(B) refuse to provide housing assistance payments for such
unit.
SEC. 355. PROHIBITION OF ASSISTANCE FOR VACANT RENTAL UNITS.
If an assisted family vacates a dwelling unit for which
rental assistance is provided under a housing assistance
payments contract before the expiration of the term of the
lease for the unit, rental assistance pursuant to such
contract may not be provided for the unit after the month
during which the unit was vacated.
Subtitle D--General and Miscellaneous Provisions
SEC. 371. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this title:
(1) Assisted dwelling unit.--The term ``assisted dwelling
unit'' means a dwelling unit in which an assisted family
resides and for which housing assistance payments are made
under this title.
(2) Assisted family.--The term ``assisted family'' means an
eligible family on whose behalf housing assistance payments
are made under this title or who has been selected and
approved for housing assistance.
(3) Choice-based.--The term ``choice-based'' means, with
respect to housing assistance, that the assistance is not
attached to a dwelling unit but can be used for any eligible
dwelling unit selected by the eligible family.
(4) Eligible dwelling unit.--The term ``eligible dwelling
unit'' means a dwelling unit that complies with the
requirements under section 328 for consideration as an
eligible dwelling unit.
(5) Eligible family.--The term ``eligible family'' means a
family that meets the requirements under section 321(a) for
assistance under this title.
(6) Homeownership assistance.--The term ``homeownership
assistance'' means housing assistance provided under section
329 for the ownership of a dwelling unit.
(7) Housing assistance.--The term ``housing assistance''
means choice-based assistance provided under this title on
behalf of low-income families for the rental or ownership of
an eligible dwelling unit.
(8) Housing assistance payments contract.--The term
``housing assistance payments contract'' means a contract
under section 351 between a public housing agency (or the
Secretary) and an owner to make housing assistance payments
under this title to the owner on behalf of an assisted
family.
(9) Public housing agency.--The terms ``public housing
agency'' and ``agency'' have the meaning given such terms in
section 103, except that the terms include--
(A) a consortia of public housing agencies that the
Secretary determines has the capacity and capability to
administer a program for housing assistance under this title
in an efficient manner;
(B) any other entity that, upon the effective date of this
Act, was administering any program for tenant-based rental
assistance under section 8 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), pursuant to a contract
with the Secretary or a public housing agency; and
(C) with respect to any area in which no public housing
agency has been organized or where the Secretary determines
that a public housing agency is unwilling or unable to
implement this title, or is not performing effectively--
(i) the Secretary or another entity that by contract agrees
to receive assistance amounts under this title and enter into
housing assistance payments contracts with owners and
perform the other functions of public housing agency under
this title; or
(ii) notwithstanding any provision of State or local law, a
public housing agency for another area that contracts with
the Secretary to administer a program for housing assistance
under this title, without regard to any otherwise applicable
limitations on its area of operation.
(10) Owner.--The term ``owner'' means the person or entity
having the legal right to lease or sublease dwelling units.
Such term includes any principals, general partners, primary
shareholders, and other similar participants in any entity
owning a multifamily housing project, as well as the entity
itself.
(11) Rent.--The terms ``rent'' and ``rental'' include, with
respect to members of a cooperative, the charges under the
occupancy agreements between such members and the
cooperative.
(12) Rental assistance.--The term ``rental assistance''
means housing assistance provided under this title for the
rental of a dwelling unit.
SEC. 372. RENTAL ASSISTANCE FRAUD RECOVERIES.
(a) Authority To Retain Recovered Amounts.--The Secretary
shall permit public housing agencies administering housing
assistance under this title to retain, out of amounts
obtained by the authorities from tenants that are due as a
result of fraud and abuse, an amount (determined in
accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary) equal to
the greater of--
(1) 50 percent of the amount actually collected; or
(2) the actual, reasonable, and necessary expenses related
to the collection, including costs of investigation, legal
fees, and collection agency fees.
(b) Use.--Amounts retained by an agency shall be made
available for use in support of the affected program or
project, in accordance with regulations issued by the
Secretary. If the Secretary is the principal party initiating
or sustaining an action to recover amounts from families or
owners, the provisions of this section shall not apply.
(c) Recovery.--Amounts may be recovered under this
section--
(1) by an agency through a lawsuit (including settlement of
the lawsuit) brought by the agency or through court-ordered
restitution pursuant to a criminal proceeding resulting from
an agency's investigation where the agency seeks prosecution
of a family or where an agency seeks prosecution of an owner;
(2) through administrative repayment agreements with a
family or owner entered into as a result of an administrative
grievance procedure conducted by an impartial decisionmaker
in accordance with section 110; or
(3) through an agreement between the parties.
SEC. 373. STUDY REGARDING GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATION OF
ASSISTED FAMILIES.
(a) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of the
geographic areas in the State of Illinois served by the
Housing Authority of Cook County and the Chicago Housing
Authority and submit to the Congress a report and a specific
proposal, which addresses and resolves the issues of--
(1) the adverse impact on local communities due to
geographic concentration of assisted households under the
tenant-based housing programs under section 8 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect upon the enactment
of this Act) and under this title; and
(2) facilitating the deconcentration of such assisted
households by providing broader housing choices to such
households.
The study shall be completed, and the report shall be
submitted, not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(b) Concentration.--For purposes of this section, the term
``concentration'' means, with respect to any area within a
census tract, that--
(1) 15 percent or more of the households residing within
such area have incomes which do not exceed the poverty level;
or
(2) 15 percent or more of the total affordable housing
stock located within such area is assisted housing.
(c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the
date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 374, STUDY REGARDING RENTAL ASSISTANCE.
The Secretary shall conduct a nationwide study of the
choice-based housing assistance program under this title and
the tenant-based rental assistance program under section 8 of
the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect pursuant
to section 601(c) and 602(b)). The study shall, for various
localities--
(1) determine who are the providers of the housing in which
families assisted under such programs reside;
(2) describe and analyze the physical and demographic
characteristics of the housing in which such assistance is
used, including, for housing in which at least one such
assisted family resides, the total number of units in the
housing and the number of units in the housing for which such
assistance is provided;
(3) determine the total number of units for which such
assistance is provided;
(4) describe the durations that families remain on waiting
lists before being provided such housing assistance; and
(5) assess the extent and quality of participation of
housing owners in such assistance programs in relation to the
local housing market, including comparing--
(A) the quality of the housing assisted to the housing
generally available in the same market; and
(B) the extent to which housing is available to be occupied
using such assistance to the extent to which housing is
generally available in the same market.
The Secretary shall submit a report describing the results
of the study to the Congress not later than the expiration of
the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of
this Act.
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.
Rogers] having assumed the chair, Mr. Goodlatte, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2) to
repeal the United
[[Page H2281]]
States Housing Act of 1937, deregulate the public housing program and
the program for rental housing assistance for low-income families, and
increase community control over such programs, and for other purposes,
had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________