[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 59 (Thursday, May 8, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2399-H2426]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1615
HOUSING OPPORTUNITY AND RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1997
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. LaHood). 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} 1615
In The Committee of the Whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the
bill (H.R. 2) to repeal the United States Housing Act of 1937,
deregulate the public housing program and the program for rental
housing assistance for low-income families, and increase community
control over such programs, and for other purposes, with Mr. Goodlatte
in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, May
7, 1997, title III was open for amendment at any point.
Are there any amendments to title III?
Amendment No. 12 Offered By Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts:
Page 174, line 20, insert ``VERY'' before ``LOW-INCOME''.
Page 175, line 11, insert ``very'' before ``low-income.''
Page 187, line 5, insert ``Very'' before ``Low-Income.''
Page 187, line 10, insert ``very'' before ``low-income.''
Page 187, strike lines 13 through 22 and insert the
following:
(b) Income Targeting.--
(1) PHA-wide requirement.--Of all the families who
initially receive housing assistance under this title from a
public housing agency in any fiscal year of the agency, not
less than 75 percent shall be families whose incomes do not
exceed 30 percent of the area median income.
(2) Area median income.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term ``area median income'' means the median income of an
area, as determined by the Secretary with adjustments for
smaller and larger families, except that the Secretary may
establish income ceilings higher or lower than the
percentages specified in subsection (a) if the Secretary
finds determines that such variations are necessary because
of unusually high or low family incomes.
Page 205, line 7, insert ``very'' before ``low-income''.
Page 205, line 24, insert ``very'' before ``low-''.
Page 211, line 6, insert ``very'' before ``low-income''.
Page 214, line 1, insert ``very'' before ``low-income''.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with
the issue of the concentration of very poor people in the voucher
program. The voucher program is an important aspect of our overall
housing policy in this country where instead of having families that
live in public housing units where they are concentrated in large
numbers, in many cases in some of the kind of monstrosities that we
have come to think of as public housing, but rather as a different type
of program where any individual that is eligible for the program simply
receives a voucher and can take that voucher really to any building in
any given locality. It is a tremendously effective program; it is one
that has broad bipartisan support. However, we have to, I believe,
recognize that the major efforts that have been made by the chairman of
the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity has been to show
his concern in H.R. 2 of the concentration of the number of very poor
people that live in public housing.
Now, as a result of pursuing that policy, we have tried to pass
amendments that would have allowed the glidepath of the number of very
low-income people that occupy public housing units to decrease to about
50-50. In other words, 50 percent of the people in public housing units
would have been people that were very low income and 50 percent of the
people would be essentially working families.
That amendment was defeated, and instead we go back to the underlying
language in H.R. 2 which would mean that about 80 percent of the people
in public housing would be people with incomes that would be around $30
to $40,000 a year, or working families. While that is debated to be a
positive aspect of the new H.R. 2's housing policy, it does beg the
question as to what occurs with the 5.3 million families in this
country who are very, very poor, the vast majority of whom are
children.
Now what occurs of course is that those families simply will be
without any housing assistance whatsoever. As I have noted on previous
occasions, we have already cut the number of the amount of funding for
homeless programs by over 25 percent, we have cut the funding for
housing programs by about 25 percent, and so therefore we end up in a
situation by fixing public housing of simply throwing out millions of,
or hundreds of thousands of families, and perhaps not throwing them out
on the street, but nevertheless not providing them with any assistance.
Now the basic rationale is that we need to have more working families
in public housing. While that may be a desirable public policy, as we
have already debated, it does not seem to me to hold up in any way,
shape or form when it comes to the voucher program. There is no
concentration of very poor people in any communities in this country
using the voucher program. And yet the Republican plan calls for
[[Page H2400]]
under H.R. 2 a reduction in the number of very poor families that would
receive funding under the voucher program, again decreasing
dramatically from the 75 percent of the people that currently receive
the vouchers at below 30 percent of median income to about 80 percent
of the families over the period of the next few years going to incomes
above 80 percent of median.
And so what we have is a situation where working families will end up
receiving the voucher program, and while people can argue that this is
what they want in terms of public housing or the assisted housing
policy, this is an issue where I think it is crystal clear that we do
not have to throw out and turn our backs on the very, very poor in
order to have the kind of income mix and the kind of neighborhood mix
that I think is desirable in our country.
It seems to me that even in the richest neighborhoods of America it
would not be bad to necessarily have a few poor people living in
apartments that are being rented in those areas, if in fact those
apartments are available to the section 8 program. If we want to have
mixed income communities, if that is the ultimate desire of good
housing policy, then it seems to me that we ought to continue to keep
the concentration levels up to 75 percent that we have seen in the past
under the amendment that I am proposing.
Now this amendment that we propose actually amends that program to
allow for an even greater mix of working families to participate in the
voucher program.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts was allowed to
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to object, but at
one time we discussed time limitation; I thought perhaps agreement as
to that. If we can do that, that would be helpful.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would entertain
imposing a time limitation if it appears at a certain point we would be
going well beyond--I do not think we agreed to a time limitation on
this amendment. If the gentleman would recognize it is only a few
Members in the Chamber, we do not expect this debate is going to last
very long, and I would appreciate the gentleman, maybe if we get beyond
20 minutes on each side we could entertain a limitation.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I appreciate the gentleman allowing the
use he requests.
The point of this amendment is really very simple. It essentially,
H.R. 2, reduces the percentage of section 8 certificates that must go
to the very, very poor to only 40 percent from the current levels of 75
percent. It also permits up to 60 percent of the new section 8
assistance to go to those with incomes as high as 80 percent of median,
as high as $41,600 in cities like Boston and New York. Over time,
millions of very, very poor families could be denied assistance in
addition to 13 million individuals and families with acute housing
problems.
Do not be fooled by arguments from the other side about the
concentrations of the very poor in public housing. This amendment has
nothing to do with public housing or warehousing individuals, since
section 8 assistance is portable.
The choice here is simple: Should we target scarce Federal resources
to those in greatest need? I believe we ought to. This amendment makes
sure that it will be done.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentleman by saying I think he
makes a number of very good arguments and that this is a reasonably
close call, but I would come down on the other side because in the
final measure there are some ramifications that are imperfect, and let
me just go over a couple.
One is that all of a sudden we develop a system in which the
incentives are not to work, and so this is a disincentive-to-work
provision.
Let me explain why it works out that way, why if we pass this
amendment, we will in effect be locking out the working poor from these
programs.
For instance, in the State of Iowa, and we have developed charts on a
number of States, 83 percent of the districts in which families of four
with two parents working full-time at a minimum wage would be excluded
from this program under the Kennedy approach.
Let me finish and then I will be happy to yield.
If we take the State of Massachusetts, 44 percent of the districts in
which families of four with two parents working full-time at no more
than 55 cents above the minimum wage would be excluded from this
program. When we exclude the working poor from the program, what we
do--even though the gentleman is partly right that with voucher program
we do not segregate the poor quite as dramatically, or the poorest of
the poor quite as dramatically as we do in the nonvoucher approach,
although there are in practice sometimes a little bit of choice-based
movement into concentrated areas that may occur--we give people an
incentive to have a program benefit instead of work.
Virtually all that we are trying to do in this bill is work in a
direction that is a bit different than current policy, and I
acknowledge that, and it has some disadvantages, and I would
acknowledge that as well. But we are trying to move in the direction of
having more mixed approaches involving the poorest of the poor and the
working poor being equal beneficiaries of, or if not equal at least
being accommodated under Federal programs, and then to say to those
that are not working, that there are more incentives to work.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to
point out to the gentleman I do not know where he got his statistics,
but the basic statistic that I think everyone acknowledges, and
certainly, because I know the gentleman from Iowa voted for the minimum
wage bill, I believe he referenced that in the debate the other day.
Does the gentleman understand if one works a 40-hour week at minimum
wage in this country, their income is about $11,000 a year; that is
below the 30 percent that I am referring to in our targeting numbers?
So what I am trying to suggest here, I do not know where the
gentleman gets the 55 cents and all the rest of that stuff and he gave
a bunch of these statistics the other day. I am just pointing out to
the gentleman that the families that we are talking about, 75 percent
of which are below 30 percent, in most cases are working.
So what we are saying is that even if one works full time at a
minimum wage job, they are still below the 30 percent targeting cutoff
that we are trying to acknowledge is an important cutoff for the
purposes of making certain that we take care of the very poor.
Mr. LEACH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the
gentleman is saying, and there is an aspect about targeting the poorest
of the poor that has great attractiveness. On the other hand, all I
know is that we have asked our very professional staff to go through an
assessment and do the statistical analysis, and I have a chart in front
of me of, oh, 15 States that at a minimum have 67 percent and up to a
maximum of 94 percent of districts in which families of four with two
parents working full time at minimum wage will be excluded, and I
stress this, excluded from choice-based assistance; yes, it is under
the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Just if the gentleman will yield for
clarification purposes, he is counting two incomes and I am counting
one. I am saying $11,000 a year.
Mr. LEACH. We are counting two incomes of minimum wage with a family
of four.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. It is $25,000 a year, Mr. Chairman. I
mean these are statistics that we went through at length under the
minimum wage bill.
Mr. LEACH. All I am saying is the gentleman has a philosophical point
that is deeply worthy of respect, and
[[Page H2401]]
all I am trying to say is unfortunately when we work it through, there
are counterproductive ramifications, and I tried to lay out precisely
what they are.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, when we debated this question of restricting aid to the
very poorest, and that is what we are talking about, the bill says we
should do less than we have been doing for the very poorest people.
{time} 1630
The argument in favor of cutting back on what we do for the poorest
of the poor, and remember that among the poorest of the poor, and many
of them are just children and we are talking about small children who
made the mistake of being born to very poor parents. The argument was
with regard to public housing; if we do not cut back on what we are
doing for the poorest of the poor, we will hurt them.
The gentleman from Louisiana said well, maybe we are going to be
doing less for the poorest of the poor, but we will be improving the
quality in the housing projects by reducing economic segregation. Well,
this amendment is one to which that argument simply does not apply,
despite the effort of the gentleman from Iowa to try and drag it in
sideways.
The fact is that in public housing we have concentration by
definition of people who are in public housing. When we are talking
about section 8, we are talking about, particularly now since we are
not talking about project-based where we construct these buildings, we
are talking about tenant-based vouchers in section 8's. They choose,
they can be moved about, so the concentration argument simply has no
relevance. We are now being told even without concentration, we simply
should not help as many very poor people.
Why? Well, one argument, the gentleman from Iowa says the amendment
of my friend from Massachusetts, [Mr. Kennedy] has a lot of appeal, but
he has to vote against it. I want to commend the gentleman from Iowa
[Mr. Leach] because, as we debate the housing bill time and again the
gentleman gets up and acknowledges the appeal, acknowledges the cogency
of it. He is a man of iron discipline. He can resist more things that
appeal to him by anybody I have met. He will time and again tell us
that that is a good point, and that reaches a strong emotion, but we
must be tough.
But on whom are we being tough, some 3-year-old with a poor mother?
Why are we being tough on her? Because if we allow her housing, we will
give her a disincentive to work. That was the argument. If we do not
cut back on what we give to the poorest of the poor, it will be a
disincentive to work.
The gentleman is suffering from cultural lag, Mr. Chairman, which I
believe is a parliamentarily approved condition, he forgets about the
welfare bill.
Does the gentleman not remember that the majority reformed welfare?
They no longer have the option of refusing to work if they are eligible
to work. As a matter of fact, they cannot even refuse to work under the
law now, even if there is no job. Whether or not there is a job for
them is irrelevant. They will be punished if they do not go to work.
So this notion that we are giving people a disincentive forgets about
the welfare bill. Welfare is time-limited. The argument that we are
giving people a disincentive to work does not make any sense, because
they will be cut off altogether. The question is simply whether they
are working, and at minimum wage jobs, the number of two-parent
families is probably not as great as some one-parent families.
We have a one-parent family on minimum wage, they are fully eligible
here. And the notion that we are giving people a disincentive, I mean,
what the gentleman is saying is, if we tell the very poorest of the
poor that they can get housing, they will say oh, wonderful. I get to
live in section 8 housing; even though my welfare is going to expire in
2 years, I no longer have to work.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think that is the way it will happen.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain to the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] who the Kennedy amendment would exclude,
and this is staff analysis.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time briefly,
and I will yield back, but I regret that the Rules of the House do not
allow us to yield to staff, because we could probably, by cutting out
the middleman, have a more cogent debate; but given that is the rule, I
will yield again to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, in Brownsville, TX, a family making $15,750
will be excluded from this program. However, the fair market rent there
is about $510, which is 39 percent of income.
After paying for the year's rent, that family will have only $9,631
to pay all other expenses from food to clothing to medical expenses.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time,
how does this exclude them? I think the gentleman misstates when he
says that they will be excluded. I think he is inaccurately suggesting
that the amendment of my friend from Massachusetts will totally
restrict them from the program and will exclude them. Will he explain
to me how they will be excluded?
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
what the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts does and one of
the reasons I think this is such a close call is suggest that only the
poorest of the poor would be targeted.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me
say this: Amendments do not suggest, amendments say, they are wording.
And I think, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the chairman of the committee
is being a little more ambiguous than the rules allow in this sense.
I challenge the notion that this excludes people. It does not suggest
that they are excluded, it is amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Frank] has expired.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask for 2 additional
minutes.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reserving my right to object, I
would just like to ask if the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]
will yield to me.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Lazio].
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. FRANK was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the inaccurate statement
has been made, in all good faith, that this excludes people, and I do
not believe it excludes them. This is not, as I understand, I would
just say in 10 more seconds I will yield, I have previously supported
amendments to the Federal preference system because they had the effect
of totally excluding people above poverty. This is not an effort
totally to exclude them, nor do I believe the amendment does exclude
them.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio].
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I would
just say in the gentleman from Massachusetts' amendment, the
eligibility for choice-based assistance is restricted to families with
incomes of 50 percent or below of median income.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the
gentleman, 50 percent, not 30 percent.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, to respond, no, but the language
of the gentleman's amendment is that anybody above 50 percent is
excluded, and that is what the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] is
taking.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, I think there is a
clear misunderstanding here. My impression was from the gentleman from
Iowa, and maybe I misheard him, was talking about 30 percent. If we
were talking about 50 percent, it would be different. I thought there
was a suggestion that the amendment excluded people above 30 percent of
median, not 50
[[Page H2402]]
percent. That is a very different set of categories. I thought we were
talking about people at 30 percent. If we are talking about 50 percent,
it is a different story, but I thought there were statistics being
given of people at 30 percent.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to
my good friend that even HUD's own document here says that the
likelihood of households having severe housing problems declines
sharply as incomes rise above 30 percent of median. Over 70 percent of
unassisted renters with incomes below 30 percent of median have
priority problems compared with only 23 percent of unassisted renters
with incomes between 31 and 50 percent.
What all that means is that the acute housing needs of people with
incomes below $25,000 are where the housing demand is. If we have
incomes above $25,000, people generally can afford housing.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, my
clear understanding is the gentleman from Ohio was talking about 30
percent below median, not 50 percent, and 50 percent is the accurate
people, people not being excluded below 30 percent.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, it is a very interesting debate trying to decide how
many vouchers we should have and how we can fairly distribute these
vouchers. I think it would be fair to say that it would be very
difficult ever to come up with a completely fair answer for everybody.
I do not think there is a right answer. I think the whole debate over
public housing is an interesting debate and, for me, a very
disappointing debate. I do not know what number day this is, but it
must be the 4th or 5th day we have been into the debate over public
housing, and the differences between the two major debates here seems
to be so little, from my viewpoint.
Mr. Chairman, what we are really dealing with, and I think everybody
is concerned about it, and that is how do we provide the maximum number
of houses for poor people. That is what we want to do. We have
different versions of this effort, but the detail on how to do this,
and this micromanagement, even like who gets vouchers and how to
declare and what is happening, this is just a very, very strange debate
for somebody like myself who comes from a free market constitutional
position. But nevertheless, I hear this debate.
I do know, though, that if we look in general terms throughout the
world, the more socialized a country is, the more interventionist it
is, the more the government is involved in housing, the less houses we
have for poor people. The more freedom a country has, the more houses
there are.
We have only been in the business of really working to provide
housing for our poor people in the last 30 years, and I do not think we
have done that good a job. I think we have plenty of poor people. As a
matter of fact, there are probably more homeless now than there were
even 30 years ago. However, I think someday we might have to wake up
and decide that public housing might not be the best way to achieve
housing for poor people.
The basic assumption here in public housing is that if somebody does
not have a house and another person has two houses, if we take one
house from him and give it to the other one, that this would be fair
and equitable. For some reason, this is not very appealing to me and to
many others. As a matter of fact, if there was some slight degree of
success on this, it would create a very dull society; it would cause a
very poor society as well. But the efforts by government to
redistribute houses never works, and we have to finally, I think, admit
to this.
Mr. Chairman, the effort to pay for public housing is another
problem. It is always assumed that there is going to be some wealthy
individual that will pay for the house for the poor individual. But the
assumption is always that the wealthy will pay for it, but
unfortunately, due to our tax system and due to the inflationary system
that we have, low, middle income and middle class individuals end up
paying the bills.
This whole process is a snowball effect. The more effort we put out,
the more problems it leaves, the more deficits we have, the more
inflation we have, the more people become unemployed, and the more poor
people we have, and the more pressure there is to build houses. This is
what is going on. That is why people decry the fact that there are more
homeless than ever before. And I grant, I believe there probably is,
but I also believe that we are on the wrong track. I do not see how
public housing has been beneficial. I believe, quite frankly, that it
has been very detrimental.
The two approaches that I hear, one wants to raise the budget by $5
billion on our side of the aisle, and the other side complains it is
not enough. I mean, how much more money? Is money itself going to do
it?
The basic flaw in public housing is that both sides of this argument
that I hear is based on a moral assumption that I find incorrect. It is
based on the assumption that the government has the moral authority to
use force to redistribute wealth, to take money from one group to give
to another. In other words, it endorses the concept that one has a
right to their neighbor's property.
This, to me, is the basic flaw that we accept, we do not challenge. I
challenge it because I believe a free society is a more compassionate
society. A free society can produce more houses than any type of
government intervention or any government socialization of a program.
Compassion is a wonderful thing, but if it is misled by erroneous
economic assumptions, it will do the opposite. The unintended
consequences of government intervention, government spending,
government inflation is a very serious problem, because it literally
creates more of the problem that we are trying to solve.
So I would suggest that we should think more favorably about freedom,
the marketplace, and a sound currency.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GONZALEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] for yielding to me.
I would just like to point out a number of income levels at the 50
percent of median that the amendment calls for. In Los Angeles, one can
make $25,650 a year, and this really goes to the chairman of the full
committee's numbers that he was citing earlier.
I just want to point out to the gentleman that that definitely covers
two minimum wage income families, or wage earners. In New York it would
$24,500. Washington, DC would be $34,150. Boston, MA, $28,250. In all
of those circumstances, two minimum wage job earners in a single family
would still qualify for this program.
So what it really comes down to, and if the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
Leach] would engage in just a brief colloquy, I would appreciate it,
because what we are really talking about, the gentleman understands
that this no longer is an amendment that applies to public housing, it
simply applies to the voucher program.
I think we have answered the issue as to whether or not this is
somehow a disincentive to work. This indicates that two people working
in the same family at minimum wage jobs would still be eligible for
this program in almost every major city in America. And so what we are
trying to suggest is that we have a real problem here where it is in
fact the largest single growing area of our population, the very, very
poor.
So the question before us is whether or not we are going to provide
the housing to those very, very poor people under the voucher program.
Now, there are other programs that exist in the Federal Government
such as housing finance agencies, all sorts of subsidy programs for
homeownership, that incomes of $25,000, $30,000, $35,000 a year are all
eligible. The low income housing tax credit, there are a whole range of
additional programs that meet those individuals' needs.
{time} 1645
We ought to be encouraging home ownership among those folks. This is
a
[[Page H2403]]
program that has no concentration problems, has no problems with regard
to creating these monstrosities of old public housing units, but what
it does do is say that, please, let us try and provide this resource to
the families that have the greatest need.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GONZALEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reemphasize
the point my friend just made, this is the only program which you can
get into, basically, if you are 50 percent and below. There are other
programs, not as much. There is the low-income housing tax credit which
helps people at 70 and 80 and 90 percent and 60 percent. There is the
home program.
We have traditionally had in housing programs what we call deep
subsidy programs and shallower subsidy programs. The problem we have is
this: There is no way people at 30 and 40 percent can work their way
into the lower subsidy programs. They cannot work up to that. They will
never have enough money. So what you are doing is excluding to a great
extent many of the poorest people from the only program they can
afford. We have a range of programs, and you are skewing what has been
a more balanced mix.
I never wanted this to be only for the very poor, and I fought some
of the Federal preferentials that made it only for the very poor, but
the point is when you talk about the exclusion of working people you
are forgetting the low-income housing tax credit, you are forgetting
tax-exempt bonds for State housing finance agencies, you are forgetting
the home program, elderly housing programs, you are forgetting a whole
range of other things which provide only for people at the upper end of
eligibility, and you are denying it to people for whom it is the only
resource.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
would just stress that this program as currently drafted in the statute
applies to the poorest of the poor, and it also applies to the working
poor. The amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts will exclude in
many instances the working poor.
The second gentleman from Massachusetts notes, quite properly, that
there are other programs that also deal with the working poor. But just
so that there is no misunderstanding, because the gentleman cited some
inner city circumstances that this amendment would not be exclusive of,
in 16 States, 67 percent or more of HUD districts, families of four
with two parents working full time at the minimum wage, would be
excluded from this program.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Kennedy of Masssachusetts and by unanimous
consent, Mr. Gonzalez was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GONZALEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I would also say that in addition to the 16
States, where two-thirds of the districts would be excluded, even in
Massachusetts, which is not as affected as some other States, 44
percent of HUD districts would be excluded, of families of four with
two parents working full time at no more than 55 cents above the
minimum wage.
So what this amendment does that is good is it targets the poorest of
the poor. What it does that is imperfect is that it gives disincentives
to work and it excludes many members of the relatively working poor.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GONZALEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I would just like to respond, Mr.
Chairman, that the gentleman from Iowa has generally been a fair-minded
chairman, and I think that he would perhaps admit that before this bill
becomes law, some of these targeting amendments will change. So I find
it surprising that he is going to argue this on merits.
Those families that the gentleman just cited I believe would all be
eligible for home ownership programs throughout the State of
Massachusetts and all the other 17 States the gentleman just
identified.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GONZALEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this notion of a work
disincentive, given the existence of the welfare bill, would cut you
off just comes out of thin air. The notion that people quit jobs or
refuse to get jobs because they might get a section 8 when they would
have no other means of support simply does not make any sense at all.
Do the Members on the other side not remember what they did in the
welfare bill? I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I move to strike the requisite number of
words, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to try and put this whole debate into
perspective. Under H.R. 2, the bill that we have been discussing for
the last 4 or 5 days, under the choice-based program, which is commonly
known as the voucher program, if a local community chooses they may
target every single one of the vouchers to people below 30 percent of
area median income, the poorest of the poor. If they choose, they can
target them all to 20 percent, or 15 percent, or 10 percent. The idea
is that the local community can choose.
To the extent that the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Kennedy] handcuffs the hands of local authorities and says that
they must set aside x amount of units to people below 30 percent of
area median income, and no vouchers to those families making over 50
percent of area median income, what it says is that the local
communities, the housing authority cannot make a rational distinction
for families that may be at 51 percent of area median income but have
special needs. They are shut out.
Make no mistake about it, this is about local control, this is about
flexibility, this is about local communities being able to set their
own goals with the understanding that at a minimum under this bill, at
a minimum, that they must devote 40 percent of the units to people
making under 30 percent of area median income, the poorest of the poor,
at a minimum 40 percent of the units. But they can do 50 or 60 or 70 or
80, depending on the local characteristics, and depending on the need
of the people who are asking to be served, because some people will
fall 1 or 2 or 5 or 8 percentage points higher, and they will have
special needs that make them deserving of getting that voucher.
Now, it is entirely correct, entirely correct, because when we are
using HUD statistics, that if the amendment of the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is adopted, families with two incomes, a
husband and a wife at minimum wage or a few pennies above minimum wage,
like 50 cents over minimum wage, will be completely shut out from
vouchers, a family of four.
For example, in Pennsylvania, a family of four with two wage earners,
a mom and dad at minimum wage, living in 61 percent of HUD's fair
market rent areas will not be eligible to receive the voucher benefit;
none, no families. In Illinois, 70 percent of the fair market rent
areas would have families of four that would be wholly ineligible under
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]
to receive a voucher; in Arkansas, 93 percent; in Louisiana, 94
percent; 94 percent. Do Members want to know who is excluded? The
families with two parents working at minimum wage, that is who would be
excluded under the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
So if we took it to its logical extension, if people responded to the
incentives that would be created by the gentleman's amendment, they
would choose not to marry or they certainly would choose, they would
certainly choose not to work, and so they would make no income.
Therefore they would respond to the incentives under the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts to receive the benefit. But
if they are workers at minimum wage and trying to make it, trying to
live by the rules, they are shut out.
We are not saying under H.R. 2 that poor people should not get help,
because under H.R. 2 we are saying at a
[[Page H2404]]
minimum, at a minimum, 40 percent of those vouchers ought to go to
people of very low income. There is no maximum of vouchers to the very
poor, but it is up to the local community to decide. We are not
prescribing from Washington. We are not saying, again, Big Brother will
tell you exactly what to do and what percentages you are going to set,
because in the real world, in the real world, percentages do not
accurately reflect the needs of families and individuals.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman
seriously trying to stand up before us and tell us that if we target
housing to very poor families, that that is a disincentive to get
married?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what I am
suggesting is that the gentleman's amendment, if adopted, would do
precisely that. It would create that level of incentive, because I
would say to the gentleman, again, if you have a family of two making
minimum wage, you would not be eligible under the gentleman's amendment
to receive vouchers in a vast amount of areas throughout the country.
But if you chose not to get married or if you chose not to work, then
you would be eligible. That is the incentive that the gentleman's
amendment would create. That is why I am opposed to the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I have been fascinated by this debate, and a little
perplexed. I kind of came in when the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul]
was making his comments, and noted that there were some striking
similarities between what we were debating today and what we debated
last week.
Last week we were trying to tell our colleagues on the other side,
including the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul], that if you take a house
away from one person and give it to another, you are creating a problem
for the one from whom you took it. That is why we said, hey, unless you
are creating more housing, every time you take a public housing unit
away from the very poor and give it to the working poor you are
disadvantaging the very poor and putting them on the street.
The gentleman from Texas is not here, but I wanted to tell him that I
certainly agree with his notion that if you take a house away from
somebody and give it to somebody else, the person you took it from has
been disadvantaged, but that was true last week as well as it is this
week. It did not change from last week to this week. The same theory
applies. It was true then, it is true now.
I wanted to tell him that while he may be right that public housing
is a problem, we are not talking about public housing now. This is
about vouchers, and so we are not talking about public housing projects
or public housing communities this week. We had that discussion last
week.
I certainly want to tell the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], the
chairman of the subcommittee, that it is fine for him to talk about
local flexibility today, but where was all the local flexibility last
week when we were debating this issue, or earlier this week, when we
were debating this issue? He values local flexibility now, it seems to
me he would have valued it then.
But first and foremost, I cannot understand why last week and earlier
this week the objective was to come up with a mix, and all of a sudden
now we are on the other side of that issue. It is okay to mix in public
housing working poor, even if it is at the expense of the very poor,
but it is not okay to mix into the voucher program more poor people
because that vouchered housing is out in some other parts of the
community. If it is a good policy to support mixing income levels,
then, my goodness, is it not a good policy running in both directions?
It cannot be only a one-way street.
I do not understand, Mr. Chairman, why we have gotten ourselves into
this, except that again the committee chairman and the subcommittee
chairman are defending this bill at all costs, as if it was some
perfect vehicle. This bill is not perfect. The problem is we have got a
limited number of units and they have to go to somebody. We have a
limited number of vouchers and they have to go to somebody.
We are trying to figure out some way to get not only poor people, the
working poor taken care of, but we are trying to figure out a way to
get the very poor taken care of, because if we do not do that, those
people are going to end up on the street.
{time} 1700
They do not have any options. And so while the Kennedy solution is
not a perfect solution, the only perfect solution is to come up with
more housing units for public housing and more vouchers for nonpublic
housing to accommodate all of the people who do not have enough
housing. That is the only perfect solution. I would submit to my
colleagues that the solution of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] is a lot better than the solution that is provided for in the
base bill.
I encourage my colleagues to support the Kennedy amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
from New York for yielding to me.
I want to respond just briefly to a number of these issues. We hear
an awful lot of heated rhetoric here. I think when we get to a point
where we are suggesting that by looking out for very poor people that
we are somehow dealing with a disincentive to get married, we have
reached a new low in terms of how we characterize this debate. This is
very simply an issue of the fact that there are not enough resources to
take care of the housing needs of very poor people.
The chairman of the committee understands very clearly that we did
cut 25 percent of the Nation's homeless budget in these last 2 years.
We have also dramatically cut back on housing funding by another 25
percent. The number of poor people that we are going to be able to
affect in terms of housing policy has shrunk, not grown. The number of
poor people that are eligible for this housing has grown substantially,
not shrunk. So we have a bigger problem with shorter resources.
The question is whether or not in terms of these public housing
projects, whether or not we should have a better mix of working
families in those projects. I believe we should. I think that the
Republican solution went too far in terms of public housing itself.
However, we lost that debate. I accept that loss.
This is a different debate. This deals with the voucher program where
the Government gives them a voucher. They can take it to any
neighborhood. Where a landlord will accept payment in that
neighborhood, they can get the unit. It has nothing to do with
concentrations.
We have other housing programs with people, and I am sure in the
State of Iowa, the State of Massachusetts, two very different States, I
have spent time in both, when there are States as varying as those two,
they are able to, with incomes of $25,000, $28,000, $30,000 a year,
incomes with two parents working, they are eligible for a broad array
of homeownership programs, including many programs that are offered by
private sector banks, many of whom are incentivized through the
Community Reinvestment Act.
There are banks that would line up to get families that have that
kind of income to make loans to them, to buy condominiums that might be
worth, $60,000, $70,000, $80,000 to $100,000 in all, a broad array of
these markets. They are not the individuals that badly need the voucher
program.
The families that need the voucher program are the very poor. It is
the single largest growing portion of the American population. For us
to say, using just the rhetoric of public housing projects, to denounce
and to suggest that somehow by looking out for very poor people, this
bill has fungibility built in, a new policy that I strongly object to,
because what it enables us to do is to take and strip people out of
various projects and take
[[Page H2405]]
them out of the public housing program and put them into the voucher
program or vice versa.
The chairman would understand that there is an incentive brought by
the local public housing authority to take in more upper-income people.
It means that there are going to be very many more, very low income
people that are not going to have any government assistance, nobody is
going to take care of them. They are going to be out on the street.
That is ultimately the policy that we are endorsing here. It is not
antimarriage. It is not antilove. It is not antianything. It is just
saying, can we find it in our souls to just be a little compassionate?
We have told the poor people they have to go to work. We have told
the poor people that they cannot have dogs and cats. Well, OK, if we
want to say that. We have told them all sorts of things in this bill.
They have got to file personal improvement programs. They have to go to
work. They have got all sorts of different requirements placed on them.
What we are just trying to suggest is put whatever requirements we have
to, but please give this housing to those families that have the
greatest need.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, there are two statistics that I think one
has to be very careful of. The gentleman has used 25 percent and with
the time frame, but it must be placed in the Record that this bill that
we have before us is 100 percent of the administration's request this
year.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Iowa
knows that the funding levels that we have already suggested, that the
President was wrong at the funding levels. I know my colleague makes
the case that that means that we are out of touch.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Nadler was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will
continue to yield, what I am pointing out to the gentleman is that it
was the Republican Congress, it was under his leadership that this
committee cut the homeless budget by 25 percent and cut the housing
budget by 25 percent as well. It was those actions that ended up with
the lower funding levels at $20 billion a year and less than a billion
dollars a year in homeless funding. That is what happened. It was under
the Republican leadership, under the Contract With America, under the
rescission bill that that took place. And that is why we are at the
level of funding we are today. It is unconscionable that President
Clinton accepted those funding levels. And if he were here on this
floor today, I would tell him to his face.
This is a terrible level of housing assistance but it does not
provide an excuse for us going along with it.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, first I want to be very precise on several
points. The gentleman has referred to a reduction in spending for
several programs as part of a 95 supplemental which was not passed out
of our committee. This was not a committee that passed that out. So the
gentleman is making a point in attempting to assert a degree of
personal responsibility for which I think he should be very cautious.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will
continue to yield, did the gentleman from Iowa vote for that budget?
Mr. LEACH. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and the President of the United States
signed it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have said that I do not
go along with the President of the United States on this. I certainly
did not vote for it. The gentleman's side initiated it and his side
voted for it.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
would also stress again, what this bill does, as it is currently
constituted, is target to the poorest of the poor, but then it does not
say that the near-poor are excluded. What the Kennedy amendment does is
exclude the near-poor. In this regard, we are also saying that it is
local discretion. There is no binding exclusion which the Kennedy
amendment implies. But under the committee approach, 100 percent would
go to the poorest of the poor.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler]
has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Nadler was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if perhaps
the solution to this issue would be to go back to what is current
policy. Would the gentleman from Iowa object to a provision that would
suggest that we keep 75 percent of the units at below 30 percent and
allow the other 25 percent to go to whatever income levels that the
gentleman chooses?
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
would be happy to look carefully at language that comes before the
committee. We will seriously review it. That will become a
conferenceable issue. This chairman of this committee would have an
open mind.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the
gentleman that we are in the midst of a markup. We are at a situation
right now, Mr. Chairman, where we have the possibility. I have the
authority to accept that provision. It goes back to existing law. We do
not need a lot of studies. We have a lot of years of experience. I
wonder whether or not the chairman would convince the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Housing to accept that right now.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler]
has again expired.
(On request of Mr. Lazio of New York, and by unanimous consent, Mr.
Nadler was allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would say that the very
essence of H.R. 2 is local flexibility. That is not in current law.
Current law suggests, again, go back to the same old Washington
prescription. This is why we want to have this kind of flexibility so
that working people, families making, a family of four with two wage
earners at minimum wage would not be shut out as they are, both under
the Kennedy amendment and under current law.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I cannot sit here and
listen to the chairman of our subcommittee say that with a straight
face after the debate we had last week. The essence of this bill is
certainly not local flexibility, far from it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 133, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]
will be postponed.
Are there further amendments to title III?
Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler:
Page 184, strike lines 5 through 8 and insert the
following:
(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated for
providing public housing agencies with housing assistance
under this title for each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000,
2001, and 2002--
[[Page H2406]]
(1) such sums as may be necessary to renew any contracts
for choice-based assistance under this title or tenant-based
assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act
of 1937 (as in effect before the repeal under section 601(b)
of this Act) that expire during such fiscal year, only for
use for such purpose; and
(2) $305,000,000, only for use for incremental assistance
under this title.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, we have negotiated a time
limitation on this amendment of 26 minutes, evenly divided, the
gentleman from New York controlling half the time and myself
controlling half the time.
I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and all
amendments thereto be limited to 26 minutes, evenly divided between the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] and myself.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] and the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler], each will control 13 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to this bill that
would, I would like to commend the gentleman from New York on the other
side and the gentleman from Massachusetts for their hard work on this
bill. This bill is seriously deficient because it reneges on our
national commitment to create decent affordable housing. This bill
provides absolutely no specific funding to make any new housing
available to low income or moderate income families.
My amendment, which the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] joins
me in offering, would authorize 50,000 new section 8 vouchers to help
low income families afford safe decent housing. We must send the
appropriators a message that we believe the creation of new section 8
vouchers is a priority.
I would like to thank the chairman of the subcommittee and gentleman
from Massachusetts for including language in the bill so that funding
will be available to renew all existing section 8 vouchers. It is
vitally important that those families currently benefiting from this
program not be suddenly thrown out on the street. But it is not enough.
The need for housing assistance remains staggering. Today 5.3 million
poor families either pay more than 50 percent of their income for rent
or live in severely substandard housing.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, founder of the public housing
system in our Nation, spoke eloquently in 1944 of the fact that, and I
quote, ``True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security
and independence. Necessitous men are not free men.''
FDR was right. Every family has the right to a decent home, or do we
no longer believe this to be so?
President Roosevelt's commitment to provide decent, safe, affordable
housing to those that cannot afford the rent in the private market
continued through administrations both Republican and Democratic.
Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George Bush all to some degree
continued that commitment. But 2 years ago, the majority in Congress
decided that commitment was no longer worth keeping. For the first time
since the program began, no money was provided in that budget for new
section 8 vouchers.
Our amendment will return to the legacy of the past half century. It
will authorize funding to provide for an additional 50,000
certificates, equal to the President's request. I challenge anyone to
argue that tenant-based section 8 vouchers do not achieve their goals.
The tenant-based section 8 program is one of the most successful
housing programs in existence. Section 8 pays a portion of a qualified
family's rent. Each family commits 30 percent of their income to rent.
The rest is paid by the section 8 voucher.
Overall rents are capped at fair market value. Thanks to section 8,
families are able to afford decent safe housing; nothing extravagant
and frankly sometimes not very nice at all, but much better than the
alternative. For these families section 8 is more than a contract or a
subsidy. It is often the foundation upon which they can build lifelong
economic self-sufficiency. Section 8 allows families to enter the
private housing market and choose where they live, creating better
income mixes throughout our communities.
{time} 1715
Today over a million families receive section 8 vouchers, which give
them the mobility to choose their own decent housing. Yet over 5
million households are defined by HUD as having worst case housing
needs; that is, paying over 50 percent of their income in rent or
living in severely substandard housing. Not one of these 5 million
families receives any Federal housing assistance. Their need is
desperate. We must not turn our backs on the realities of the housing
market and our people's desperate needs.
Our amendment will allow 50,000 more families to live in safe,
affordable, decent housing. It is not asking for much. We only ask that
today we commit to meet 1 percent of the need for affordable housing in
our Nation. We can and should do more, but today, I will ask only for a
very modest downpayment.
Some will say even helping 1 percent will cost too much. Some will
say we cannot afford to pay the $6,000 per family it would cost to
provide decent housing for these families. The reality is we cannot
afford to shirk this responsibility.
The money is there. The chairman of the Committee on the Budget has
taken the lead in pointing out the billions of dollars we spend each
year on corporate welfare. The GAO recently reported that the
Department of Defense has $2.7 billion in inventory items which are not
needed to meet the services' operating and reserve requirements. Simply
eliminating from the defense budget just the storage cost of these
unnecessary inventory items would save $382 million annually,
substantially more than the cost of this amendment.
That is the choice before us today: Pay for outdated, archaic,
inflated needs, and we can find them throughout the budget, or focus
our scarce resources on programs that, without question, do much good.
Which is more important, unnecessary rivets collecting dust in a
warehouse somewhere or a roof over a family's head?
Mr. Chairman, I ask support for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Schumer].
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Lazio] for allowing me to proceed, and I thank the other gentleman from
New York [Mr. Nadler] for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, next week the House will consider a supplemental
appropriations bill to help the victims of the Red River flood. I will
join most Members in supporting this legislation because the families
of Grand Forks need and deserve our help. But the offset for this
emergency assistance is, once again, housing.
It seems that every time we cut the budget or provide relief to
victims of natural disasters, the first account we look to is the
housing account. In this latest supplemental we are cutting housing
programs by $3.5 billion. These funds were put aside by housing
authorities at our discretion to begin to cover the massive payment we
all know is coming due for expiring project-based assistance.
These are not just my views. This week the chairman of the Senate
Committee on the Budget, Pete Domenici, said expiring section 8
contracts will gobble up discretionary spending. So, with no thought to
the consequences, we will soon vote to eliminate funding for 500,000
federally assisted housing units.
The amendment I offer, with my good friend from New York, Mr. Nadler,
says we must stop using HUD for spare parts. Under Presidents Richard
Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush, Congress and the
President managed to find at least some new money for housing. But last
year, for the first time in 50 years, we provided nothing, no new money
for housing construction and no new money for section 8.
It is not because we solved the housing crisis. As we all know too
well, 5.3 million families still pay over half their income in rent and
live in substandard units, the likes of which my colleagues and I would
be repulsed by.
[[Page H2407]]
Our amendment provides a modest increase of $300 million for section
8 housing each year over the next 5 years. Our amendment lets 50,000
new families each year receive desperately needed housing assistance.
It is identical to the President's request, which means that in the
context of balancing the budget, we can afford it.
I commend the gentleman from New York, Chairman Lazio, for many of
the reforms in this bill, particularly in the area of public housing. I
understand he is under a great deal of pressure to cut spending, and he
has received no support from those on his side of the aisle to fight
for funding.
This is, indeed, a well-intentioned bill, but it is not enough. We
have a 50-year streak of helping those with housing needs. Let us not
jeopardize it. Support the Nadler-Schumer amendment.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say, first of all, that under the terms of
H.R. 2, the bill we are debating today, we do authorize incremental or
new vouchers. In the language of the bill we simply authorize that such
sums as may be necessary are authorized. The reason for that is because
we do not have any basis for fixing a sum.
For example, certain buildings in public housing will be demolished,
in which case some of those residents may receive vouchers. In some
cases the cost of remodeling will be so great that it will be more cost
effective and the choice will be better for the tenant to receive a
voucher, and they will receive that voucher. In other situations,
people that may be displaced are seniors or disabled and will be
receiving vouchers but, again, we are not sure exactly how many there
are.
So we have tried to make it clear from an authorizing standpoint that
we are for additional new vouchers, but we cannot exactly say for sure
because there is no basis to say for sure how many new vouchers we are
authorizing.
Now, under the amendment offered by the gentlemen from New York, they
are requesting a sum certain, $350 million in budget authority for new
section 8 certificates and vouchers of the choice-based program under
the terms of the bill. According to the General Accounting Office,
there is no basis in fact in which to determine, other than this
objective, that 50,000 vouchers is the appropriate amount of vouchers.
It may be too little or it may be too much, but there is no certainty.
That is why we have allowed maximum flexibility in the bill but, at
the same time, a statement that we believe that additional vouchers
should be authorized, they are authorized and should be appropriated
for.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding to me.
Let me just say first that the reason we put a specific amount in
here, and the specific amount is the amount suggested in the
President's budget, is that we believe that given the fact that in this
year's budget, the budget we are living under now, there is zero
appropriation for new section 8 housing, and an open-ended
authorization of whatever may be necessary will not get anything from
the appropriators. So we think that we should have a sum certain.
I would ask the gentleman if he would, whether this amendment passes
or fails, if he would join us in asking the Committee on Appropriations
for a sum certain. I would ask for this amount, the gentleman may pick
some other number, but a sum certain so that we know that in this
budget we will at least continue our commitment to new section 18?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say
to the gentleman that I would be happy to advocate to the Committee on
Appropriations for additional vouchers, choice-based vouchers.
If we could find an appropriate basis to fix an authorization number,
I would even be willing, in the event this amendment fails, to include
that, if we could, at conference level.
My position is that I do not have any basis right now in order to fix
a number. I would also add that the appropriators, of course, even with
an authorization, chose not to appropriate money. So there is really no
reason, simply because we have a fixed number of $350 million, to
presume that alone would lead the appropriators to appropriate money
for that account. Because there is, of course the gentleman knows, a
crisis in the project-based section 8 which needs to be resolved, and I
understand that and I sympathize with the appropriators, but I am happy
and pleased to advocate for additional vouchers because the need is
clearly there.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Davis].
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Nadler] for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment, and I do so because
it attempts to recognize one of the great needs in our society. Almost
any evening across urban America, you can walk down the streets and see
hundreds of men and women lined up trying to get in shelters because
they have no place to go.
This amendment would, at least, give 50,000 additional homeless
families in America a place to live. I strongly support it. I commend
the gentleman for introducing it and hope that it will pass.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Lazio], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community
Opportunity, for agreeing with the need for additional vouchers and for
his agreeing to go to the Committee on Appropriations and urge
additional vouchers.
I would suggest, however, that we all know, that the gentleman from
New York knows and I know and everyone knows, that given the fiscal
stringencies in the balanced budget agreement, whatever happens to the
politics of that over the next few weeks and months, that the odds of
getting a real appropriation, a sizable appropriation, are very small.
The odds of getting an appropriation that exceeds the amount suggested
in this authorization in this amendment is, I would suggest, nil.
So I would urge the gentleman to accept this amendment as a ceiling
on what we can realistically expect and as an expression by the House
to the appropriators that may strengthen our hand in getting some
reasonable fraction of this as an appropriation. I hope the gentleman
will see the reasoning of that.
But, in any event, I would urge the passage of this amendment, if
only to say morally that this House demands, that the House wants and
knows that we need additional section 8 vouchers. I suspect that by
putting a specific number in it, it really does strengthen our hand
with the appropriators, although it obviously does not guarantee it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers on this
amendment. If I may inquire of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler]
if he has additional speakers.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we have no other speakers. I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in summary, we need more section 8 vouchers. It is the
only program we have going for additional low-income and moderate-
income housing units. We have 5.3 million households. That is probably
15 or 16 million people in desperate need of new housing.
Last year was the first year since 1937, with the possible exception
of a couple years in World War II, in which we had a zero budget for
new low- and moderate-income housing. I think it imperative that we
speak out by adoption of this amendment that we do not mean to make
permanent this turning away from our 60 years' commitment to house our
people decently. So I urge the adoption of this amendment.
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.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could enter into a colloquy with the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler]. First of all, let me compliment
the gentleman for his interest in housing
[[Page H2408]]
and community development. I am well aware of it in the New York
metropolitan area.
Second of all, let me inquire of the gentleman if it would be
acceptable to the gentleman if he received a commitment from this
Member to work with him to establish a fixed amount in terms of
authorization or, in the alternative, to go to the Committee on
Appropriations to argue with the gentleman for an appropriate amount
for which we could establish some logical basis, if the gentleman would
consider withdrawing the amendment for now and working with this
Member?
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am not clear on what the gentleman is
suggesting. Is the gentleman suggesting that we would simply go to the
Committee on Appropriations and that we would seek a different amount
to put in as an amendment to this bill?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would
suggest that we could pursue either or both strategies as long as we
get a reasonable basis in order to fix an amount.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
appreciate the commitment of the gentleman and willingness or eagerness
to join in going to the Committee on Appropriations to urge a specific
amount. I do think this bill should contain a specific amount.
I would be willing to withdraw this amendment if we have the
agreement that we will try to work out by Tuesday a specific amount
which we would then put into the bill and, if we do not reach that, we
can have at least a voice vote on this amendment.
{time} 1730
But I do think we should have a specific amount, not simply in mind
with which to go to the Committee on Appropriations but in the bill.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. If I could reclaim my time, the best case
scenario from this Member's perspective would be if the gentleman would
withdraw the amendment and we would work to see if we could establish
some good basis in order to make a judgment. But if that were not the
case that we could do that by Tuesday, it might take longer. But I am
committing to the gentleman that I would work with the gentleman to
advocate for additional vouchers as long as we have a reasonable
amount. Otherwise, I am afraid that we would be asking for an amount
that has no clear basis. It has merit but not a factual basis.
Mr. NADLER. If the gentleman will yield further, I understand what
the gentleman means. I would be willing on that basis to withdraw the
amendment until Tuesday so we could if we reach an agreement, an agreed
amount, put it in and do that then. I do not think I could withdraw the
amendment without that.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I thank the gentleman. We will have to take
the vote on this. I thank the gentleman and look forward to working
with him either way.
Mr. NADLER. If the gentleman will yield further, I appreciate the
gentleman's comments. I look forward to working with him whatever
happens to this amendment at this point.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 133, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler]
will be postponed.
Are there further amendments to title III?
The Clerk will designate title IV.
The text of title IV is as follows:
TITLE IV--HOME RULE FLEXIBLE GRANT OPTION
SEC. 401. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this title is to give local governments and
municipalities the flexibility to design creative approaches
for providing and administering Federal housing assistance
based on the particular needs of the communities that--
(1) give incentives to low-income families with children
where the head of household is working, seeking work, or
preparing for work by participating in job training,
educational programs, or programs that assist people to
obtain employment and become economically self-sufficient;
(2) reduce cost and achieve greater cost-effectiveness in
Federal housing assistance expenditures;
(3) increase housing choices for low-income families; and
(4) reduce excessive geographic concentration of assisted
families.
SEC. 402. FLEXIBLE GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Authority and Use.--The Secretary shall carry out a
program under which a jurisdiction may, upon the application
of the jurisdiction and the review and approval of the
Secretary, receive, combine, and enter into performance-based
contracts for the use of amounts of covered housing
assistance in a period consisting of not less than 1 nor more
than 5 fiscal years in the manner determined appropriate by
the participating jurisdiction--
(1) to provide housing assistance and services for low-
income families in a manner that facilitates the transition
of such families work;
(2) to reduce homelessness;
(3) to increase homeownership among low-income families;
and
(4) for other housing purposes for low-income families
determined by the participating jurisdiction.
(b) Inapplicability of Categorical Program Requirements.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2) and
section 405, the provisions of this Act regarding use of
amounts made available under each of the programs included as
covered housing assistance and the program requirements
applicable to each such program shall not apply to amounts
received by a jurisdiction pursuant to this title.
(2) Applicability of certain laws.--This title may not be
construed to exempt assistance under this Act from, or make
inapplicable any provision of this Act or of any other law
that requires that assistance under this Act be provided in
compliance with--
(A) title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.
2000d et seq.);
(B) the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.);
(C) section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29
U.S.C. 701 et seq.);
(D) title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (86 Stat.
373 et seq.);
(E) the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101 et
seq.);
(F) the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; or
(G) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and other
provisions of law that further protection of the environment
(as specified in regulations that shall be issued by the
Secretary).
(c) Effect on Program Allocations for Covered Housing
Assistance.--The amount of assistance received pursuant to
this title by a participating jurisdiction shall not be
decreased, because of participation in the program under this
title, from the sum of the amounts that otherwise would be
made available for or within the participating jurisdiction
under the programs included as covered housing assistance.
SEC. 403. COVERED HOUSING ASSISTANCE.
For purposes of this title, the term ``covered housing
assistance'' means--
(1) operating assistance provided under section 9 of the
United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before the
effective date of this Act);
(2) modernization assistance provided under section 14 of
such Act;
(3) assistance provided under section 8 of such Act for the
certificate and voucher programs;
(4) assistance for public housing provided under title II
of this Act; and
(5) choice-based rental assistance provided under title III
of this Act.
Such term does not include any amounts obligated for
assistance under existing contracts for project-based
assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act
of 1937 or section 601(f) of this Act.
SEC. 404. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Eligible Families.--Each family on behalf of whom
assistance is provided for rental or homeownership of a
dwelling unit using amounts made available pursuant to this
title shall be a low-income family. Each dwelling unit
assisted using amounts made available pursuant to this title
shall be available for occupancy only by families that are
low-income families at the time of their initial occupancy of
the unit.
(b) Compliance With Assistance Plan.--A participating
jurisdiction shall provide assistance using amounts received
pursuant to this title in the manner set forth in the plan of
the jurisdiction approved by the Secretary under section
406(a)(2).
(c) Rent Policy.--A participating jurisdiction shall ensure
that the rental contributions charged to families assisted
with amounts received pursuant to this title--
(1) do not exceed the amount that would be chargeable under
title II to such families were such families residing in
public housing assisted under such title: or
(2) are established, pursuant to approval by the Secretary
of a proposed rent structure included in the application
under section 406, at levels that are reasonable and designed
to eliminate any disincentives for members of
[[Page H2409]]
the family to obtain employment and attain economic self-
sufficiency.
(d) Housing Quality Standards.--
(1) Compliance.--A participating jurisdiction shall ensure
that housing assisted with amounts received pursuant to this
title is maintained in a condition that complies--
(A) in the case of housing located in a jurisdiction which
has in effect laws, regulations, standards, or codes
regarding habitability of residential dwellings, with such
applicable laws, regulations, standards, or codes; or
(B) in the case of housing located in a jurisdiction which
does not have in effect laws, regulations, standards, or
codes described in paragraph (1), with housing quality
standards established under paragraph (2).
(2) Federal housing quality standards.--the Secretary shall
establish housing quality standards under this paragraph that
ensure that dwelling units assisted under this title 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 extend practicable, be
consistent with the standards established under sections
232(b) and 328(c). The Secretary shall differentiate between
major and minor violations of such standards.
(e) Number of Families Assisted.--A participating
jurisdiction shall ensure that, in providing assistance with
amounts received pursuant to this title in each fiscal year,
not less than substantially the same total number of eligible
low-income families are assisted as would have been assisted
had the amounts of covered housing assistance not been
combined for use under this title.
(f) Consistency With Welfare Program.--A participating
jurisdiction shall ensure that assistance provided with
amounts received pursuant to this title is provided in a
manner that is consistent with the welfare, public
assistance, or other economic self-sufficiency programs
operating in the jurisdiction by facilitating the transition
of assisted families to work, which may include requiring
compliance with the requirements under such welfare, public
assistance, or self-sufficiency programs as a condition of
receiving housing assistance with amounts provided under this
title.
(g) Treatment of Currently Assisted Families.--
(1) Continuation of assistance.--A participating
jurisdiction shall ensure that each family that was receiving
housing assistance or residing in an assisted dwelling unit
pursuant to any of the programs included as covered housing
assistance immediately before the jurisdiction initially
provides assistance pursuant to this title shall be offered
assistance or an assisted dwelling unit under the program of
the jurisdiction under this title.
(2) Phase-in of rent contribution increases.--For any
family that was receiving housing assistance pursuant to any
of the programs included as covered housing assistance
immediately before the jurisdiction initially provides
assistance pursuant to this title, if the monthly
contribution for rental of a dwelling unit assisted under
this title to be paid by the family upon initial
applicability of this title is greater than the amount paid
by the family 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 contributions before initial applicability.
(h) Amount of Assistance.--In providing housing assistance
using amounts received pursuant to this title, the amount of
assistance provided by a participating jurisdiction on behalf
of each assisted low-income family shall be sufficient so
that if the family used such assistance to rent a dwelling
unit having a rent equal to the 40th percentile of rents for
standard quality rental units of the same size and type in
the same market area, the contribution toward rental paid by
the family would be affordable (as such term is defined by
the jurisdiction) to the family.
(i) Portability.--A participating jurisdiction shall ensure
that financial assistance for housing provided with amounts
received pursuant to this title may be used by a family
moving from an assisted dwelling unit located within the
jurisdiction to obtain a dwelling unit located outside of the
jurisdiction.
(j) Preferences.--In providing housing assistance using
amounts received pursuant to this title, a participating
jurisdiction may establish a system for making housing
assistance available that provides preference for assistance
to families having certain characteristics. A system of
preferences established pursuant to this subsection shall be
based on local housing needs and priorities, as determined by
the jurisdiction using generally accepted data sources.
(k) Community Work Requirement.--
(1) Applicability of requirements for pha's.--Except as
provided in paragraph (2), participating jurisdictions,
families assisted with amounts received pursuant to this
title, and dwelling units assisted with amounts received
pursuant to this title, shall be subject to the provisions of
section 105 of the same extent that such provisions apply
with respect to public housing agencies, families residing in
public housing dwelling units and families assisted under
title III, and public housing dwelling units and dwelling
units assisted under title III.
(2) Local community service alternative.--Paragraph (1)
shall not apply to a participating jurisdiction that,
pursuant to approval by the Secretary of a proposal included
in the application under section 406, is carrying out a local
program that is designed to foster community service by
families assisted with amounts received pursuant to this
title.
(l) Income targeting.--In providing housing assistance
using amounts received pursuant to this title in any fiscal
year, a participating jurisdiction shall ensure that the
number of families having incomes that do not exceed 30
percent of the area median income that are initially assisted
under this title during such fiscal year is not less than
substantially the same number of families having such incomes
that would be initially assisted in such jurisdiction during
such fiscal year under titles II and III pursuant to sections
222(c) and 321(b)).
SEC. 405. APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS.
(a) Public Housing Demolition and Disposition
Requirements.--Section 261 shall continue to apply to public
housing notwithstanding any use of the housing under this
title.
(b) Labor Standards.--Section 112 shall apply to housing
assisted with amounts provided pursuant to this title, other
than housing assisted solely due to occupancy by families
receiving tenant-based assistance.
SEC. 406. APPLICATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide for
jurisdictions to submit applications to receive and use
covered housing assistance amounts as authorized in this
title for periods of not less than 1 and not more than 5
fiscal years. An application--
(1) shall be submitted only after the jurisdiction provides
for citizen participation through a public hearing and, if
appropriate, other means;
(2) shall include a plan developed by the jurisdiction for
the provision of housing assistance with amounts received
pursuant to this title that takes into consideration comments
from the public hearing and any other public comments on the
proposed program, and comments from current and prospective
residents who would be affected, and that includes criteria
for meeting each of the requirements under section 404 and
this title;
(3) shall describe how the plan for use of amounts will
assist in meeting the goals set forth in section 401;
(4) shall propose standards for measuring performance in
using assistance provided pursuant to this title based on the
performance standards under subsection (b)(2);
(5) shall propose the length of the period for which the
jurisdiction is applying for assistance under this title; and
(6) may include a request assistance for training and
technical assistance to assist with design of the program and
to participate in a detailed evaluation.
(7) shall--
(A) in the case of the application of any jurisdiction
within whose boundaries are areas subject to any other unit
of general local government, include the signed consent of
the appropriate executive official of such unit to the
application; and
(B) in the case of the application of a consortia of units
of general local government (as provided under section
409(1)(B)), include the signed consent of the appropriate
executive officials of each unit included in the consortia;
(8) shall include information sufficient, in the
determination of the Secretary--
(A) to demonstrate that the jurisdiction has or will have
management and administrative capacity sufficient to carry
out the plan under paragraph (2);
(B) to demonstrate that carrying out the plan will not
result in excessive duplication of administrative efforts and
costs, particularly with respect to activities performed by
public housing agencies operating within the boundaries of
the jurisdiction;
(C) to describe the function and activities to be carried
out by such public housing agencies affected by the plan; and
(D) to demonstrate that the amounts received by the
jurisdiction will be maintained separate from other funds
available to the jurisdiction and will be used only to carry
out the plan; and
(9) shall include information describing how the
jurisdiction will make decisions regarding asset management
of housing for low-income families under programs for covered
housing assistance or assisted with grant amounts under this
title.
A plan required under paragraph (2) to be included in the
application may be contained in a memorandum of agreement or
other document executed by a jurisdiction and public housing
agency, if such document is submitted together with the
application.
(b) Review, Approval, and Performance Standards.--
(1) Review.--The Secretary shall review applications for
assistance pursuant to this title. If the Secretary
determines that the application complies with the
requirements of this title, the Secretary shall offer to
enter into an agreement with jurisdiction providing for
assistance pursuant to this title and incorporating a
requirement that the jurisdiction achieve a particular level
of performance in each of the areas for which performance
standards are established under paragraph (2). If the
Secretary determines that an application does not comply with
the
[[Page H2410]]
requirements of this title, the Secretary shall notify the
jurisdiction submitting the application of the reasons for
such disapproval and actions that may be taken to make the
application approvable. Upon approving or disapproving an
application under this paragraph, the Secretary shall make
such determination publicly available in writing together
with a written statement of the reasons for such
determination.
(2) Performance standards.--The Secretary shall establish
standards for measuring performance of jurisdictions in the
following areas:
(A) Success in moving dependent low-income families to
economic self-sufficiency.
(B) Success in reducing the numbers of long-term homeless
families.
(C) Decrease in the per-family cost of providing
assistance.
(D) Reduction of excessive geographic concentration of
assisted families.
(E) Any other performance goals that the Secretary may
prescribe.
(3) Approval.--If the Secretary and a jurisdiction that the
Secretary determines has submitted an application meeting the
requirements of this title enter into an agreement
referred to in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall approve
the application and provide covered housing assistance for
the jurisdiction in the manner authorized under this
title. The Secretary may not approve any application for
assistance pursuant to this title unless the Secretary and
jurisdiction enter into an agreement referred to in
paragraph (1). The Secretary shall establish requirements
for the approval of applications under this section
submitted by public housing agencies designated under
section 533(a) as troubled, which may include additional
or different criteria determined by the Secretary to be
more appropriate for such agencies.
(c) Status of PHA's.--Nothing in this section or title may
be construed to require any change in the legal status of any
public housing agency or in any legal relationship between a
jurisdiction and a public housing agency as a condition of
participation in the program under this title.
SEC. 407. TRAINING.
The Secretary, in consultation with representatives of
public and assisted housing interests, shall provide training
and technical assistance relating to providing assistance
under this title and conduct detailed evaluations of up to 30
jurisdictions for the purpose of identifying replicable
program models that are successful at carrying out the
purposes of this title.
SEC. 408. ACCOUNTABILITY.
(a) Performance Goals.--The Secretary shall monitor the
performance of participating jurisdictions in providing
assistance pursuant to this title based on the performance
standards contained in the agreements entered into pursuant
to section 406(b)(1).
(b) Keeping Records.--Each participating jurisdiction shall
keep such records as the Secretary may prescribe as
reasonably necessary to disclose the amounts and the
disposition of amounts provided pursuant to this title, to
ensure compliance with the requirements of this title and to
measure performance against the performance goals under
subsection (a).
(c) Reports.--Each participating jurisdiction agency shall
submit to the Secretary a report, or series of reports, in a
form and at a time specified by the Secretary. The reports
shall--
(1) document the use of funds made available under this
title;
(2) provide such information as the Secretary may request
to assist the Secretary in assessing the program under this
title; and
(3) describe and analyze the effect of assisted activities
in addressing the purposes of this title.
(d) Access to Documents by Secretary.--The Secretary shall
have access for the purpose of audit and examination to any
books, documents, papers, and records that are pertinent to
assistance in connection with, and the requirements of, this
title.
(e) Access to Documents by Comptroller General.--The
Comptroller General of the United States, or any of the duly
authorized representatives of the Comptroller General, shall
have access for the purpose of audit and examination to any
books, documents, papers, and records that are pertinent to
assistance in connection with, and the requirements of, this
title.
SEC. 409. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this title, the following definitions shall
apply:
(1) Jurisdiction.--The term ``jurisdiction'' means--
(A) a unit of general local government (as such term is
defined in section 104 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act) that has boundaries, for purposes of
carrying out this title, that--
(i) wholly contain the area within which a public housing
agency is authorized to operate; and
(ii) do not contain any areas contained within the
boundaries of any other participating jurisdiction; and
(B) a consortia of such units of general local government,
organized for purposes of this title.
(2) Participating jurisdiction.--The term ``participating
jurisdiction'' means, with respect to a period for which such
approval is made, a jurisdiction that has been approved under
section 406(b)(3) to receive assistance pursuant to this
title for such fiscal year.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title IV?
amendment no. 13 offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts:
Page 220, strike line 12 and all that follows through line
12 on page 237 (and redesignate subsequent provisions and any
references to such provisions, and conform the table of
contents, accordingly).
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I understand in speaking to the
gentleman from Massachusetts that there is a proposed agreement to
limit time to 20 minutes, 10 minutes controlled by the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], 10 minutes controlled by myself. If that
is acceptable to the gentleman from Massachusetts, if I could make that
unanimous-consent request.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would amend the
unanimous-consent request to go 5 and 5.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts
is very generous and I accept it.
The CHAIRMAN. And that includes all amendments thereto?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with, I think, one of the most
devious and unfortunate elements in this bill, and, that is, the block
granting of the entire title IV.
H.R. 2, title IV, is simply a gigantic, untested block grant scheme.
It will increase political influence over public housing authorities,
increase HUD's cost and personnel, remove vital tenant protections, and
create duplication of services that is simply unworkable.
Quite simply, title IV permits local jurisdictions, most likely
cities, to apply for the same public housing and section 8 assistance
that is currently going to local public housing authorities. My
amendment would simply eliminate the block grant scheme.
First and foremost, I am concerned about the undue political
influence. The worst public housing authorities are those that are
controlled by local political influences. Why then would we try to
increase such local political influences by giving the money directly
to politicians?
It expands HUD costs and personnel. At a time when the Republicans
repeatedly criticize HUD, why do they want to increase the burden of
HUD staff to create additional costs by requiring HUD to sift through
potentially thousands and thousands of block grant proposals to
evaluate who would do the best job at the local level?
It removes tenant protections. Title IV removes vital Brooke
protections and income targeting protections altogether.
And it is redundant with the public housing authorities locally. We
have heard a great deal of rhetoric about providing funding back to the
local folks. That is fine. I am not sure that that means we hand it to
the local cities themselves. We want to make sure that the public
housing goes to people that have housing knowledge and housing as their
priority.
First, it is unclear why we should allow redundant, separate local
jurisdictions to compete with each other for the administration of
Federal housing assistance. We already have procedures to take over the
administration of badly run or badly managed public housing
authorities.
Title IV as proposed under the bill is opposed by several
organizations, including the National Association of Housing and Rural
Development Agencies, NAHRO; the Council of Large Public Housing
Authorities; and the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association.
All are uniquely and uniformly opposed to this.
The Council of Large Public Housing Authorities says:
Title IV ignores the well-documented history of public
housing: excessive direct involvement of local elected
officials in the operations has frequently resulted in
patronage employment, corrupt contracting practices
[[Page H2411]]
and troubled PHA's. One need look no further than out your
window for a prime example, the District of Columbia Housing
Authority, which is now being revived under an able receiver
after years of costly decline.
According to the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association,
PHADA believes, quote, that the home rule plan is ill-advised because
it could very well detract scant housing funds from their intended
purpose. Indeed, in the few instances where the locality has had a
significant amount of control over the local housing authority's
operation, Washington D.C. and New Orleans, for example, disastrous
results have occurred.
And NAHRO also supports this amendment which deletes title IV of the
bill. It says, quote, as we have expressed to Chairman Lazio, NAHRO
supports what we believe to be the desire to foster local innovation
and greater working relationships between housing authorities and local
governments. However, we believe the provision, as currently drafted,
is not the proper vehicle to accomplish that purpose.
The NAHRO chapter in my own home State of Massachusetts noted, ``The
home rule block grant program potentially could mean the end of low-
income public housing, with our own local officials dealing the death
blow. This is a very bad idea.''
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Title IV of this bill would provide maximum flexibility for new
ideas, new innovation. It does not preclude the housing authorities
from participating in the new idea. It simply says that a municipal
leader, a mayor, would be able to come forward and suggest a plan to
HUD with certain protections that are built into the bill, including
protecting the same amount of low-income people in terms of housing
that would be true if we did not choose this option.
What we are trying to do is to allow the creative inspiration of
people at the municipal level to put forward plans subject to the
approval of the Federal Government, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. There are protections that are built into this plan. For
example, rent-setting protections are built into this plan serving the
same amount of low income people; that is built into the plan. But we
are trying to develop a system in which local leaders like mayors are
more inclined to invest their own resources in economic development and
housing for low-income people.
Right now we have had mayors testify before the committee that they
are not inclined to invest their own dollars into their own cities
because they feel removed from the decisionmaking, because they feel
they have no valid input. But if they were included in it, if they were
allowed to participate, they would bring the full panoply of resources
at the disposal of municipalities in a creative way, in an integrated
way, to help deal with the root causes of poverty and to address the
housing concerns of that individual or that particular community.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record
the following letter from the National League of Cities. The National
League of Cities supports this amendment.
National League of Cities,
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC, May 1, 1997.
Hon. Joseph Kennedy,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Kennedy: The National League of Cities
(NLC) urges you to vote no on H.R. 2, the ``Housing
Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 1997,'' and to support
a superior substitute bill which will be offered by Joseph P.
Kennedy, II during floor debate in the House this week. We
are especially opposed to the proposed repeal of the ``United
States Housing Act of 1937'' and the proposal to give the
Administration authority to impose sanctions on cities and
towns.
H.R. 2 would repeal the ``United States Housing Act of
1937'' which has provided the underpinning for the Department
of Housing and Urban Development's basic purpose for more
than 60 years. The Act set a national goal to provide every
American with safe, sanitary, affordable housing. In NLC's
National Municipal Policy, our housing goal is to ``provide
for every American a decent home in a suitable living
environment with adequate financial stability to maintain
it.'' We believe that abandoning this basic goal would be a
disservice to every American who is struggling to provide
adequately for his or her family. Housing is essential if
families are to be safe and if those responsible for food and
shelter are to seek and find permanent employment.
The bill would also propose new sanctions on cities and
towns over the condition of a municipality's public housing
authority. This implies there is a cause and effect when, in
fact, the federal government and some state governments have
far greater and more effective control over public housing
authorities than mayors and city councils. In most cities and
towns, the local government may have the authority to appoint
members to the PHA board when a vacancy occurs. This is the
extent of local control.
We oppose the inclusion of the Community Development Block
Grant sanction on cities included in H.R. 2. This sanction
would be imposed by the Secretary of HUD by withholding or
redirecting a city's CDBG funding for an indefinite period of
time. This sanction would go into effect if the Secretary
determines that a PHA has become troubled due to the action
or inaction of local government.
NLC has fought this provision since it first appeared in
last year's public housing reform bill, H.R. 2406. It is ill-
conceived and unnecessarily punitive. NLC has recommended
that any public housing reform bill include incentives to
encourage cooperation between cities and public housing
authorities (PHAs). It would be much more appropriate to
recommend positive remedial actions long before imposing
sanctions. Also, sponsors of this provision can only sight
four cities that have ``substantially'' contributed to the
troubled status of their PHAs. They are Chicago, New Orleans,
Detroit, and Camden, N.J. It is extreme to threaten to
sanction the other 3,395 local governments with PHAs in their
communities.
Let me thank you in advance for your support of
constructive reform of public housing, an essential national
housing resource.
Sincerely,
Mark Schwartz,
President.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my
time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], the former chairman of
the full committee.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 30 seconds.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise very strongly to support the
Kennedy amendment. I find this home rule flexible block grant program
just simply outrageous and it must be struck from the bill.
I can recall the horrendous times when there were no such things as
housing assistance programs. I recall vividly families in the most
distressed areas of our area in and around my hometown that I would
visit as I had worked as a chief two-and-out probation officer for a
while and would find these hovels with dirt floors and no privy or
anything. Those were horrendous times. The way we are going, we are
going right back to them.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], a distinguished member of the
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity of the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services.
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I think we have to go back and remember what the
situation is. In some parts of the country, the public housing agencies
and programs they run for the working poor, for the poor, for less
privileged Americans, are an absolute disgrace. We are trying to
provide some innovation here, some flexibility so that innovation can
come forth. What is being proposed to be struck here is the home rule
flexibility grant option.
Let us take a look briefly at what we are attempting to do here. We
are trying to encourage innovation in housing programs at the local
level. We are trying to give localities the ability to present to HUD
an alternative plan to provide housing for the community. This is where
we have the troubled housing authorities that have failed.
Currently there is very little incentive for local leaders to attempt
to solve some of the problems in local housing. In some cases they have
no option. The public housing authority operates as a very separate
entity. There are also no incentives really for local leaders to
contribute scarce resources where needed.
Title IV tells local leaders if they are serious about making
contributions to solving some of the problems of housing in their
communities, then they are going to be given the flexibility to
[[Page H2412]]
do that. Everything, however, requires HUD approval, ensuring a
responsible Federal oversight role in the process, despite what we
might have heard a few minutes ago.
In an attempt to accommodate and to take into account some of the
concerns raised in the committee or at subcommittee discussions
earlier, there are a number of protections in the manager's amendment
that has been adopted.
For example, we require that the Secretary ensure that the
jurisdiction has management capability to carry out the plan they
propose. Second, the plan does not lead to excessive duplication of
administrative efforts. Third, the plan demonstrates the functions and
the activities of the local PHA.
Next, it ensures housing funds are specifically used for housing
purposes by requiring a separate housing fund, so these funds cannot be
diverted for other purposes, to suit the mayor's attention.
It provides an opportunity for the PHA to comment upon the
alternative plan. They are not shut out of the process. It provides
flexibility to the HUD Secretary to establish different requirements
for troubled housing authorities. It requires jurisdictional consent
when there are other cross-jurisdictional concerns. And it clarifies
that this title, title IV, does not require a city government takeover
or legal status change of the PHA.
The flexibility is there, the protections are there to the American
taxpayer, to the people in the community who are not being served well
now by these troubled housing authorities. This is a basic and
important reform. We need to keep title IV in and reject the amendment.
{time} 1745
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent,
if we might, to allow the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], the
former chairman, the ranking member, 2 additional minutes to complete
his statement.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] is recognized
for 2 additional minutes.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
very much because this goes to the very essence of my presence in the
United States House of Representatives.
I came from my hometown with a housing background and can recall
vividly, and I am old enough to, the outrageous situation that was
costing lives and the city, my home city, the dubious distinction of
the tuberculosis capital of the country. We are fast pulling the clock
back if we continue.
Mr. Chairman, there are no guarantees that the current public housing
inventory will have to be maintained under this because there are no
guarantees that the public housing authorities will receive funding
from the city. This is not only outrageous, it is inviting the
disinvestment in $90 billion of Federal investment, and of course it is
duplicative.
Indeed, the cities may choose to start up a new quote, unquote,
public housing program and let the current housing inventory
deteriorate. But the reason we came to the Federal level is that the
cities and the States and the counties would not do anything. That has
been the history of all of our social legislation.
I know that there is a provision which protects the public housing
authorities from disillusion, disillusion, but there are no similar
protections that they will be given the money to operate with. It is
somewhat ironic that with this block grant we could be taking money
from the public housing authorities that this legislation purports to
support. After all, the goal of this legislation is to provide housing
authorities with the flexibility they need to operate and to untie
their hands from unnecessary rules, regulations and requirements.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, let me just say I think, to
paraphrase a 20th century President, we have nothing to fear but fear
itself on this, and what we want to do is create the sense of ideas of
innovation. We should not be afraid of new ideas, we should not be
afraid of allowing a local elected leader to come forward and say I
think I have a better way of doing it, I think we can develop a better
partnership, I think that maybe in our community, in our community,
that the fixed way of having a public housing authority may not be
necessarily the best way. We may want to have a joint venture with the
public housing authority, we may want to have not-for-profits work
along with them or community development corporations or resident-
inspired groups.
The idea behind this provision of the bill would be subject to the
provisions of protection that are already in the bill to provide the
level of creativity, innovation, and this amendment would strike that,
and for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 133, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] will be postponed.
Vacating Vote on Amendment No. 18 Offered By Mr. Nadler
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
vacate the vote with regard to amendment No. 18 offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] and that the Chair restate the
question.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
The amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title IV?
The Clerk will designate title V.
The text of title V is as follows:
TITLE V--ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT OF PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCIES
Subtitle A--Study of Alternative Methods for Evaluating Public Housing
Agencies
SEC. 501. IN GENERAL.
The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall
provide under section 505 for a study to be conducted to
determine the effectiveness of various alternative methods of
evaluating the performance of public housing agencies and
other providers of federally assisted housing.
SEC. 502. PURPOSES.
The purposes of the study under this subtitle shall be--
(1) to identify and examine various methods of evaluating
and improving the performance of public housing agencies in
administering public housing and tenant-based rental
assistance programs and of other providers of federally
assisted housing, which are alternatives to oversight by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development; and
(2) to identify specific monitoring and oversight
activities currently conducted by the Department of Housing
and Urban Development that are insufficient or ineffective in
accurately and efficiently assessing the performance of
public housing agencies and other providers of federally
assisted housing, and to evaluate whether such activities
should be eliminated, modified, or transferred to other
entities (including government and private entities) to
increase accuracy and effectiveness and improve monitoring.
SEC. 503. EVALUATION OF VARIOUS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
SYSTEMS.
To carry out the purpose under section 502(1), the study
under this subtitle shall identify, and analyze and assess
the costs and benefits of, the following methods of
regulating and evaluating the performance of public housing
agencies and other providers of federally assisted housing:
(1) Current system.--The system pursuant to the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect upon the enactment
of this Act), including the methods and requirements under
such system for reporting, auditing, reviewing, sanctioning,
and monitoring of such agencies and housing providers and the
public housing management assessment program pursuant to
subtitle C of this title (and section 6(j) of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect upon the enactment
of this Act)).
(2) Accreditation models.--Various models that are based
upon accreditation of such agencies and housing providers,
subject to the following requirements:
[[Page H2413]]
(A) The study shall identify and analyze various models
used in other industries and professions for accreditation
and determine the extent of their applicability to the
programs for public housing and federally assisted housing.
(B) If any accreditation models are determined to be
applicable to the public and federally assisted housing
programs, the study shall identify appropriate goals,
objectives, and procedures for an accreditation program for
such agencies housing providers.
(C) The study shall evaluate the effectiveness of
establishing an independent accreditation and evaluation
entity to assist, supplement, or replace the role of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development in assessing and
monitoring the performance of such agencies and housing
providers.
(D) The study shall identify the necessary and appropriate
roles and responsibilities of various entities that would be
involved in an accreditation program, including the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Inspector
General of the Department, an accreditation entity,
independent auditors and examiners, local entities, and
public housing agencies.
(E) The study shall determine the costs involved in
developing and maintaining such an independent accreditation
program.
(F) The study shall analyze the need for technical
assistance to assist public housing agencies in improving
performance and identify the most effective methods to
provide such assistance.
(3) Performance based models.--Various performance-based
models, including systems that establish performance goals or
targets, assess the compliance with such goals or targets,
and provide for incentives or sanctions based on performance
relative to such goals or targets.
(4) Local review and monitoring models.--Various models
providing for local, resident, and community review and
monitoring of such agencies and housing providers, including
systems for review and monitoring by local and State
governmental bodies and agencies.
(5) Private models.--Various models using private
contractors for review and monitoring of such agencies and
housing providers.
(6) Other models.--Various models of any other systems that
may be more effective and efficient in regulating and
evaluating such agencies and housing providers.
SEC. 504. CONSULTATION.
The entity that, pursuant to section 505, carries out the
study under this subtitle shall, in carrying out the study,
consult with individuals and organization experienced in
managing public housing, private real estate managers,
representatives from State and local governments, residents
of public housing, families and individuals receiving choice-
or tenant-based assistance, the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development, the Inspector General of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, and the Comptroller General of
the United States.
SEC. 505. CONTRACT TO CONDUCT STUDY.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary
shall enter into a contract with a public or nonprofit
private entity to conduct the study under this subtitle,
using amounts made available pursuant to section 507.
(b) National Academy of Public Administration.--The
Secretary shall request the National Academy of Public
Administration to enter into the contract under paragraph (1)
to conduct the study under this subtitle. If such Academy
declines to conduct the study, the Secretary shall carry out
such paragraph through other public or nonprofit private
entities.
SEC. 506. REPORT.
(a) Interim Report.--The Secretary shall ensure that not
later than the expiration of the 6-month period beginning on
the date of the enactment of this Act, the entity conducting
the study under this subtitle submits to the Congress an
interim report describing the actions taken to carry out the
study, the actions to be taken to complete the study, and any
findings and recommendations available at the time.
(b) Final Report.--The Secretary shall ensure that--
(1) not later than the expiration of the 12-month period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the study
required under this subtitle is completed and a report
describing the findings and recommendations as a result of
the study is submitted to the Congress; and
(2) before submitting the report under this subsection to
the Congress, the report is submitted to the Secretary and
national organizations for public housing agencies at such
time to provide the Secretary and such agencies an
opportunity to review the report and provide written comments
on the report, which shall be included together with the
report upon submission to the Congress under paragraph (1).
SEC. 507. FUNDING.
Of any amounts made available under title V of the Housing
and Urban Development Act of 1970 for policy development and
research for fiscal year 1998, $500,000 shall be available to
carry out this subtitle.
SEC. 508. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This subtitle shall take effect on the date of the
enactment of this Act.
Subtitle B--Housing Evaluation and Accreditation Board
SEC. 521. ESTABLISHMENT.
(a) In General.--There is established an independent agency
in the executive branch of the Government to be known as the
Housing Foundation and Accreditation Board (in this title
referred to as the ``Board'').
(b) Requirement for Congressional Review of Study.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, sections
523, 524, and 525 shall not take effect and the Board shall
not have any authority to take any action under such sections
(or otherwise) unless there is enacted a law specifically
providing for the repeal of this subsection. This subsection
may not be construed to prevent the appointment of the Board
under section 522.
(c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the
date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 522. MEMBERSHIP.
(a) In General.--The Board shall be composed of 12 members
appointed by the President not later than 180 days after the
date of the final report regarding the study required under
subtitle A is submitted to the Congress pursuant to section
506(b), as follows:
(1) 4 members shall be appointed from among 10 individuals
recommended by the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development.
(2) 4 members shall be appointed from among 10 individuals
recommended by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of
the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the
Senate.
(3) 4 members appointed from among 10 individuals
recommended by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of
the Committee on Banking and Financial Services of the House
of Representatives.
(b) Qualifications.--
(1) Required representation.--The Board shall at all times
have the following members:
(A) 2 members who are residents of public housing or
dwelling units assisted under title III of this Act or the
provisions of 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).
(B) At least 2, but not more than 4 members who are
executive directors of public housing agencies.
(C) 1 member who is a member of the Institute of Real
Estate Managers.
(D) 1 member who is the owner of a multifamily housing
project assisted under a program administered by the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
(2) Required experience.--The Board shall at all times have
as members individuals with the following experience:
(A) At least 1 individual who has extensive experience in
the residential real estate finance business.
(B) At least 1 individual who has extensive experience in
operating a nonprofit organization that provides affordable
housing.
(C) At least 1 individual who has extensive experience in
construction of multifamily housing.
(D) At least 1 individual who has extensive experience in
the management of a community development corporation.
(E) At least 1 individual who has extensive experience in
auditing participants in government programs.
A single member of the board with the appropriate experience
may satisfy the requirements of more than 1 subparagraph of
this paragraph. A single member of the board with the
appropriate qualifications and experience may satisfy the
requirements of a subparagraph of paragraph (1) and a
subparagraph of this paragraph.
(c) Political Affiliation.--Not more than 6 members of the
Board may be of the same political party.
(d) Terms.--
(1) In general.--Each member of the Board shall be
appointed for a term of 4 years, except as provided in
paragraphs (2) and (3).
(2) Terms of initial appointees.--As designated by the
President at the time of appointment, of the members first
appointed--
(A) 3 shall be appointed for terms of 1 year;
(B) 3 shall be appointed for terms of 2 years;
(C) 3 shall be appointed for terms of 3 years; and
(D) 3 shall be appointed for terms of 4 years.
(3) Vacancies.--Any member appointed to fill a vacancy
occurring before the expiration of the term for which the
member's predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only
for the remainder of that term. A member may serve after the
expiration of that member's term until a successor has taken
office. A vacancy in the Board shall be filled in the manner
in which the original appointment was made.
(e) Chairperson.--The Board shall elect a chairperson from
among members of the Board.
(f) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Board shall
constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
(g) Voting.--Each member of the Board shall be entitled to
1 vote, which shall be equal to the vote of every other
member of the Board.
(h) Prohibition on Additional Pay.--Members of the Board
shall serve without compensation, but shall be reimbursed for
travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred in
the performance of their duties as members of the Board.
SEC. 523. FUNCTIONS.
The purpose of this subtitle is to establish the Board as a
nonpolitical entity to carry out, not later than the
expiration of the 12-month period beginning upon the
appointment under section 522 of all of the initial
[[Page H2414]]
members of the Board (or such other date as may be provided
by law), the following functions:
(1) Establishment of performance benchmarks.--The Board
shall establish standards and guidelines for use by the Board
in measuring the performance and efficiency of public housing
agencies and other owners and providers of federally assisted
housing in carrying out operational and financial functions.
The standards and guidelines shall be designed to replace the
public housing management assessment program under section
6(j) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect
before the enactment of this Act) and improve the evaluation
of the performance of housing providers relative to such
program. In establishing such standards and guidelines, the
Board shall consult with the Secretary, the Inspector General
of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and such
other persons and entities as the Board considers
appropriate.
(2) Establishment of accreditation procedure and
accreditation.--The Board shall--
(A) establish a procedure for the Board to accredit public
housing agencies to receive block grants under title II for
the operation, maintenance, and production of public housing
and amounts for housing assistance under title III, based on
the performance of agencies, as measured by the performance
benchmarks established under paragraph (1) and any audits and
reviews of agencies; and
(B) commence the review and accreditation of public housing
agencies under the procedures established under subparagraph
(A).
In carrying out the functions under this section, the Board
shall take into consideration the findings and
recommendations contained in the report issued under section
506(b).
SEC. 524. POWERS.
(a) Hearings.--The Board may, for the purpose of carrying
out this subtitle, hold such hearings and sit and act at such
times and places as the Board determines appropriate.
(b) Rules and Regulations.--The Board may adopt such rules
and regulations as may be necessary to establish its
procedures and to govern the manner of its operations,
organization, and personnel.
(c) Assistance From Federal Agencies.--
(1) Information.--The Board may secure directly from any
department or agency of the Federal Government such
information as the Board may require for carrying out its
functions, including public housing agency plans submitted to
the Secretary by public housing agencies under title I. Upon
request of the Board, any such department or agency shall
furnish such information.
(2) General services administration.--The Administrator of
General Services shall provide to the Board, on a
reimbursable basis, such administrative support services as
the Board may request.
(3) Department of housing and urban development.--Upon the
request of the chairperson of the Board, the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development shall, to the extent possible
and subject to the discretion of the Secretary, detail any of
the personnel of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, on a nonreimbursable basis, to assist the Board
in carrying out its functions under this subtitle.
(4) HUD inspector general.--The Inspector General of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development shall serve the
Board as a principal adviser with respect to all aspects of
audits of public housing agencies. The Inspector General may
advise the Board with respect to other activities and
functions of the Board.
(d) Mails.--The Board may use the United States mails in
the same manner and under the same conditions as other
Federal agencies.
(e) Contracting.--The Board may, to such extent and in such
amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, enter into
contracts with private firms, institutions, and individuals
for the purpose of conducting evaluations of public housing
agencies, audits of public housing agencies, and research and
surveys necessary to enable the Board to discharge its
functions under this subtitle.
(f) Staff.--
(1) Executive director.--The Board shall appoint an
executive director of the Board, who shall be compensated at
a rate fixed by the Board, but which shall not exceed the
rate established for level V of the Executive Schedule under
title 5, United States Code.
(2) Other personnel.--In addition to the executive
director, the Board may appoint and fix the compensation of
such personnel as the Board considers necessary, in
accordance with the provisions of title 5, United States
Code, governing appointments to the competitive service, and
the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53
of such title, relating to classification and General
Schedule pay rates.
(g) Access to Documents.--The Board shall have access for
the purposes of carrying out its functions under this
subtitle to any books, documents, papers, and records of a
public housing agency to which the Secretary has access under
this Act.
SEC. 525. FEES.
(a) Accreditation Fees.--The Board may establish and charge
reasonable fees for the accreditation of public housing
agencies as the Board considers necessary to cover the costs
of the operations of the Board relating to its functions
under section 523.
(b) Fund.--Any fees collected under this section shall be
deposited in an operations fund for the Board, which is
hereby established in the Treasury of the United States.
Amounts in such fund shall be available, to the extent
provided in appropriation Acts, for the expenses of the Board
in carrying out its functions under this subtitle.
SEC. 526. GAO AUDIT.
The activities and transactions of the Board shall be
subject to audit by the Comptroller General of the United
States under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed
by the Comptroller General. The representatives of the
General Accounting Office shall have access for the purpose
of audit and examination to any books, documents, papers, and
records of the Board that are necessary to facilitate an
audit.
Subtitle C--Interim Applicability of Public Housing Management
Assessment Program
SEC. 531. INTERIM APPLICABILITY.
This subtitle shall be effective only during the period
that begins on the effective date of this Act and ends upon
the date of the effectiveness of the standards and procedures
required under section 523.
SEC. 532. MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT INDICATORS.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall develop and publish
in the Federal Register indicators to assess the management
performance of public housing agencies and other entities
managing public housing (including resident management
corporations, independent managers pursuant to section 236,
and management entities pursuant to subtitle D). The
indicators shall be established by rule under section 553 of
title 5, United States Code. Such indicators shall enable the
Secretary to evaluate the performance of public housing
agencies and such other managers of public housing in all
major areas of management operations.
(b) Content.--The management assessment indicators shall
include the following indicators:
(1) The number and percentage of vacancies within an
agency's or manager's inventory, including the progress that
an agency or manager has made within the previous 3 years to
reduce such vacancies.
(2) The amount and percentage of funds obligated to the
public housing agency or manager from the capital fund or
under section 14 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as
in effect before the effective date of the repeal under
section 601(b) of this Act), which remain unexpended after 3
years.
(3) The percentage of rents uncollected.
(4) The energy consumption (with appropriate adjustments to
reflect different regions and unit sizes).
(5) The average period of time that an agency or manager
requires to repair and turn-around vacant dwelling units.
(6) The proportion of maintenance work orders outstanding,
including any progress that an agency or manager has made
during the preceding 3 years to reduce the period of time
required to complete maintenance work orders.
(7) The percentage of dwelling units that an agency or
manager fails to inspect to ascertain maintenance or
modernization needs within such period of time as the
Secretary deems appropriate (with appropriate adjustments, if
any, for large and small agencies or managers).
(8) The extent to which the rent policies of any public
housing agency establishing rental amounts in accordance with
section 225(b) comply with the requirement under section
225(c).
(9) Whether the agency is providing acceptable basic
housing conditions, as determined by the Secretary.
(10) Any other factors as the Secretary deems appropriate.
(c) Considerations in Evaluation.--The Secretary shall--
(1) administer the system of evaluating public housing
agencies and managers flexibly to ensure that agencies and
managers are not penalized as result of circumstances beyond
their control;
(2) reflect in the weights assigned to the various
management assessment indicators the differences in the
difficulty of managing individual developments that result
from their physical condition and their neighborhood
environment; and
(3) determine a public housing agency's or manager's status
as ``troubled with respect to modernization'' under section
533(b) based upon factors solely related to its ability to
carry out modernization activities.
SEC. 533. DESIGNATION OF PHA'S.
(a) Troubled PHA's.--The Secretary shall, under the
rulemaking procedures under section 553 of title 5, United
States Code, establish procedures for designating troubled
public housing agencies and managers, which procedures shall
include identification of serious and substantial failure to
perform as measured by (1) the performance indicators
specified under section 532 and such other factors as the
Secretary may deem to be appropriate; or (2) such other
evaluation system as is determined by the Secretary to assess
the condition of the public housing agency or other entity
managing public housing, which system may be in addition to
or in lieu of the performance indicators established under
section 532. Such procedures shall provide that an agency
that does not provide acceptable basic housing conditions
shall be designated a troubled public housing agency.
(b) Agencies Troubled With Respect to Capital Activities.--
The Secretary shall designate, by rule under section 553 of
title 5, United States Code, agencies and managers that are
troubled with respect to capital activities.
[[Page H2415]]
(c) Agencies at Risk of Becoming Troubled.--The Secretary
shall designate, by rule under section 553 of title 5, United
States Code, agencies and managers that are at risk of
becoming troubled.
(d) Exemplary Agencies.--The Secretary may also, in
consultation with national organizations representing public
housing agencies and managers and public officials (as the
Secretary determines appropriate), identify and commend
public housing agencies and managers that meet the
performance standards established under section 532 in an
exemplary manner.
(e) Appeal of Designation.--The Secretary shall establish
procedures for public housing agencies and managers to appeal
designation as a troubled agency or manager (including
designation as a troubled agency or manager for purposes of
capital activities), to petition for removal of such
designation, and to appeal any refusal to remove such
designation.
SEC. 534. ON-SITE INSPECTION OF TROUBLED PHA'S.
(a) In General.--Upon designating a public housing agency
or manager as troubled pursuant to section 533 and
determining that an assessment under this section will not
duplicate any other review previously conducted or required
to be conducted of the agency or manager, the Secretary shall
provide for an on-site, independent assessment of the
management of the agency or manager.
(b) Content.--To the extent the Secretary deems appropriate
(taking into consideration an agency's or manager's
performance under the indicators specified under section 532,
the assessment team shall also consider issues relating to
the agency's or manager's resident population and physical
inventory, including the extent to which--
(1) the public housing agency plan for the agency or
manager adequately and appropriately addresses the
rehabilitation needs of the public housing inventory;
(2) residents of the agency or manager are involved in and
informed of significant management decisions; and
(3) any developments in the agency's or manager's inventory
are severely distressed (as such term is defined under
section 262.
(c) Independent Assessment Team.--An independent assessment
under this section shall be carried out by a team of
knowledgeable individuals selected by the Secretary (referred
to in this title as the ``assessment team'') with expertise
in public housing and real estate management. In conducting
an assessment, the assessment team shall consult with the
residents and with public and private entities in the
jurisdiction in which the public housing is located. The
assessment team shall provide to the Secretary and the public
housing agency or manager a written report, which shall
contain, at a minimum, recommendations for such management
improvements as are necessary to eliminate or substantially
remedy existing deficiencies.
SEC. 535. ADMINISTRATION.
(a) PHA's.--The Secretary shall carry out this subtitle
with respect to public housing agencies substantially in the
same manner as the public housing management assessment
system under section 6(j) 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) was required to
be carried out with respect to public housing agencies. The
Secretary may comply with the requirements under this
subtitle by using any regulations issued to carry out such
system and issuing any additional regulations necessary to
make such system comply with the requirements under this
subtitle.
(b) Other Managers.--The Secretary shall establish specific
standards and procedures for carrying out this subtitle with
respect to managers of public housing that are not public
housing agencies. Such standards and procedures shall take in
consideration special circumstances relating to entities
hired, directed, or appointed to manage public housing.
Subtitle D--Accountability and Oversight Standards and Procedures
SEC. 541. AUDITS.
(a) By Secretary and Comptroller General.--Each block grant
contract under section 201 and each contract for housing
assistance amounts under section 302 shall provide that the
Secretary, the Inspector General of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development, and the Comptroller General of the
United States, or any of their duly authorized
representatives, shall, for the purpose of audit and
examination, have access to any books, documents, papers, and
records of the public housing agency (or other entity)
entering into such contract that are pertinent to this Act
and to its operations with respect to financial assistance
under the this Act.
(b) By PHA.--
(1) Requirement.--Each public housing agency that owns or
operates 250 or more public housing dwelling units and
receives assistance under this Act shall have an audit made
in accordance with chapter 75 of title 31, United States
Code. The Secretary, the Inspector General of the Department
of Housing and Urban Development, and the Comptroller General
of the United States shall have access to all books,
documents, papers, or other records that are pertinent to the
activities carried out under this Act in order to make audit
examinations, excerpts, and transcripts.
(2) Withholding of amounts.--The Secretary may, in the sole
discretion of the Secretary, arrange for, and pay the costs
of, an audit required under paragraph (1). In such
circumstances, the Secretary may withhold, from assistance
otherwise payable to the agency under this Act, amounts
sufficient to pay for the reasonable costs of conducting an
acceptable audit, including, when appropriate, the reasonable
costs of accounting services necessary to place the agency's
books and records in auditable condition.
SEC. 542. PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS FOR AUTHORITIES AT RISK OF
BECOMING TROUBLED.
(a) In General.--Upon designation of a public housing
agency as at risk of becoming troubled under section 533(c),
the Secretary shall seek to enter into an agreement with the
agency providing for improvement of the elements of the
agency that have been identified. An agreement under this
section shall contain such terms and conditions as the
Secretary determines are appropriate for addressing the
elements identified, which may include an on-site,
independent assessment of the management of the agency.
(b) Powers of Secretary.--If the Secretary determines that
such action is necessary to prevent the public housing agency
from becoming a troubled agency, the Secretary may--
(1) solicit competitive proposals from other public housing
agencies and private housing management agents (which may be
selected by existing tenants through administrative
procedures established by the Secretary), for any case in
which such agents may be needed for managing all, or part, of
the housing or functions administered by the agency; or
(2) solicit competitive proposals from other public housing
agencies and private entities with experience in construction
management, for any case in which such authorities or firms
may be needed to oversee implementation of assistance made
available for capital improvement for public housing of the
agency.
SEC. 543. PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS AND CDBG SANCTIONS FOR
TROUBLED PHA'S.
(a) In General.--Upon designation of a public housing
agency as a troubled agency under section 533(a) and after
reviewing the report submitted pursuant to section 534(c) and
consulting with the assessment team for the agency under
section 534, the Secretary shall seek to enter into an
agreement with the agency providing for improving the
management performance of the agency.
(b) Contents.--An agreement under this section between the
Secretary and a public housing agency shall set forth--
(1) targets for improving performance, as measured by the
guidelines and standards established under section 532 and
other requirements within a specified period of time, which
shall include targets to be met upon the expiration of the
12-month period beginning upon entering into the agreement;
(2) strategies for meeting such targets;
(3) sanctions for failure to implement such strategies; and
(4) to the extent the Secretary deems appropriate, a plan
for enhancing resident involvement in the management of the
public housing agency.
(c) Local Assistance in Implementation.--The Secretary and
the public housing agency shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, seek the assistance of local public and private
entities in carrying out an agreement under this section.
(d) Default Under Performance Agreement.--Upon the
expiration of the 12-month period beginning upon entering
into an agreement under this section with a public housing
agency, the Secretary shall review the performance of the
agency in relation to the performance targets and strategies
under the agreement. If the Secretary determines that the
agency has failed to comply with the performance targets
established for such period, the Secretary shall take the
action authorized under subsection (b)(2) or (b)(5) of
section 545.
(e) CDBG Sanction Against Local Government Contributing to
Troubled Status of PHA.--If the Secretary determines that the
actions or inaction of any unit of general local government
within which any portion of the jurisdiction of a public
housing agency is located has substantially contributed to
the conditions resulting in the agency being designated under
section 533(a) as a troubled agency, the Secretary may
redirect or withhold, from such unit of general local
government any amounts allocated for such unit under section
106 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
SEC. 544. OPTION TO DEMAND CONVEYANCE OF TITLE TO OR
POSSESSION OF PUBLIC HOUSING.
(a) Authority for Conveyance.--A contract under section 201
for block grants under title II (including contracts which
amend or supersede contracts previously made (including
contracts for contributions)) may provide that upon the
occurrence of a substantial default with respect to the
covenants or conditions to which the public housing agency is
subject (as such substantial default shall be defined in such
contract), the public housing agency shall be obligated, at
the option of the Secretary, to--
(1) convey title in any case where, in the determination of
the Secretary (which determination shall be final and
conclusive), such conveyance of title is necessary to achieve
the purposes of this Act; or
(2) deliver to the Secretary possession of the development,
as then constituted, to which such contract relates.
[[Page H2416]]
(b) Obligation to Reconvey.--Any block grant contract under
title II containing the provisions authorized in subsection
(a) shall also provide that the Secretary shall be obligated
to reconvey or redeliver possession of the development, as
constituted at the time of reconveyance or redelivery, to
such public housing agency or to its successor (if such
public housing agency or a successor exists) upon such terms
as shall be prescribed in such contract, and as soon as
practicable after--
(1) the Secretary is satisfied that all defaults with
respect to the development have been cured, and that the
development will, in order to fulfill the purposes of this
Act, thereafter be operated in accordance with the terms of
such contract; or
(2) the termination of the obligation to make annual block
grants to the agency, unless there are any obligations or
covenants of the agency to the Secretary which are then in
default.
Any prior conveyances and reconveyances or deliveries and
redeliveries of possession shall not exhaust the right to
require a conveyance or delivery of possession of the
development to the Secretary pursuant to subsection (a) upon
the subsequent occurrence of a substantial default.
(c) Continued Grants for Repayment of Bonds and Notes Under
1937 Act.--If--
(1) a contract for block grants under title II for an
agency includes provisions that expressly state that the
provisions are included pursuant to this subsection, and
(2) the portion of the block grant payable for debt service
requirements pursuant to the contract has been pledged by the
public housing agency as security for the payment of the
principal and interest on any of its obligations, then--
(A) the Secretary shall (notwithstanding any other
provisions of this Act), continue to make the block grant
payments for the agency so long as any of such obligations
remain outstanding; and
(B) the Secretary may covenant in such a contract that in
any event such block grant amounts shall in each year be at
least equal to an amount which, together with such income or
other funds as are actually available from the development
for the purpose at the time such block grant payments are
made, will suffice for the payment of all installments of
principal and interest on the obligations for which the
amounts provided for in the contract shall have been pledged
as security that fall due within the next succeeding 12
months.
In no case shall such block grant amounts be in excess of the
maximum sum specified in the contract involved, nor for
longer than the remainder of the maximum period fixed by the
contract.
SEC. 545. REMOVAL OF INEFFECTIVE PHA'S.
(a) Conditions of Removal.--The actions specified in
subsection (b) may be taken only upon--
(1) the occurrence of events or conditions that constitute
a substantial default by a public housing agency with respect
to (A) the covenants or conditions to which the public
housing agency is subject, or (B) an agreement entered into
under section 543; or
(2) submission to the Secretary of a petition by the
residents of the public housing owned or operated by a public
housing agency that is designated as troubled pursuant to
section 533(a).
(b) Removal Actions.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law or of any block grant contract under title II or any
grant agreement under title III, in accordance with
subsection (a), the Secretary may--
(1) solicit competitive proposals from other public housing
agencies and private housing management agents (which, in the
discretion of the Secretary, may be selected by existing
public housing residents through administrative procedures
established by the Secretary) and, if appropriate, provide
for such agents to manage all, or part, of the housing
administered by the public housing agency or all or part of
the other functions of the agency;
(2) take possession of the public housing agency, including
any developments or functions of the agency under any section
of this Act;
(3) solicit competitive proposals from other public housing
agencies and private entities with experience in construction
management and, if appropriate, provide for such authorities
or firms to oversee implementation of assistance made
available for capital improvements for public housing;
(4) require the agency to make other arrangements
acceptable to the Secretary and in the best interests of the
public housing residents and assisted families under title
III for managing all, or part of, the public housing
administered by the agency or the functions of the agency; or
(5) petition for the appointment of a receiver for the
public housing agency to any district court of the United
States or to any court of the State in which any portion of
the jurisdiction of the public housing agency is located,
that is authorized to appoint a receiver for the purposes and
having the powers prescribed in this section.
(c) Emergency Assistance.--The Secretary may make available
to receivers and other entities selected or appointed
pursuant to this section such assistance as is fair and
reasonable to remedy the substantial deterioration of living
conditions in individual public housing developments or other
related emergencies that endanger the health, safety and
welfare of public housing residents or assisted families
under title III.
(d) Powers of Secretary.--If the Secretary takes possession
of an agency, or any developments or functions of an agency,
pursuant to subsection (b)(2), the Secretary--
(1) may abrogate contracts that substantially impede
correction of the substantial default or improvement of the
classification, but only after efforts to renegotiate such
contracts have failed and the Secretary has made a written
determination regarding such abrogation, which shall be
available to the public upon request, identify such
contracts, and explain the determination that such contracts
may be abrogated;
(2) may demolish and dispose of assets of the agency in
accordance with section 261;
(3) where determined appropriate by the Secretary, may
require the establishment of one or more new public housing
agencies;
(4) may consolidate the agency into other well-managed
public housing agencies with the consent of such well-managed
authorities;
(5) shall not be subject to any State or local laws
relating to civil service requirements, employee rights,
procurement, or financial or administrative controls that, in
the determination of the Secretary, substantially impede
correction of the substantial default or improvement of the
classification, but only if the Secretary has made a written
determination regarding such inapplicability, which shall be
available to the public upon request, identify such
inapplicable laws, and explain the determination that such
laws impede such correction; and
(6) shall have such additional authority as a district
court of the United States has the authority to confer under
like circumstances upon a receiver to achieve the purposes of
the receivership.
The Secretary may appoint, on a competitive or noncompetitive
basis, an individual or entity as an administrative receiver
to assume the Secretary's responsibility under this paragraph
for the administration of a public housing agency. The
Secretary may delegate to the administrative receiver any or
all of the powers of the Secretary under this subsection.
Regardless of any delegation under this subsection, an
administrative receiver may not require the establishment of
one or more new public housing agencies pursuant to paragraph
(3) unless the Secretary first approves such establishment.
For purposes of this subsection, the term ``public housing
agency'' includes any developments or functions of a public
housing agency under any section of this title.
(e) Receivership.--
(1) Required appointment.--In any proceeding under
subsection (b)(5), upon a determination that a substantial
default has occurred, and without regard to the availability
of alternative remedies, the court shall appoint a receiver
to conduct the affairs of the public housing agency in a
manner consistent with this Act and in accordance with such
further terms and conditions as the court may provide. The
receiver appointed may be another public housing agency, a
private management corporation, the Secretary, or any other
appropriate entity. The court shall have power to grant
appropriate temporary or preliminary relief pending final
disposition of the petition by the Secretary.
(2) Powers of receiver.--If a receiver is appointed for a
public housing agency pursuant to subsection (b)(5), in
addition to the powers accorded by the court appointing the
receiver, the receiver--
(A) may abrogate contracts that substantially impede
correction of the substantial default or improvement of the
classification, but only after bona fide efforts to
renegotiate such contracts have failed and the receiver has
made a written determination regarding such abrogation, which
shall be available to the public upon request, identify such
contracts, and explain the determination that such contracts
may be abrogated;
(B) may demolish and dispose of assets of the agency in
accordance with section 261;
(C) where determined appropriate by the Secretary, may
require the establishment of one or more new public housing
agencies, to the extent permitted by State and local law; and
(D) except as provided in subparagraph (C), shall not be
subject to any State or local laws relating to civil service
requirements, employee rights, procurement, or financial or
administrative controls that, in the determination of the
receiver, substantially impede correction of the substantial
default or improvement of the classification, but only if the
receiver has made a written determination regarding such
inapplicability, which shall be available to the public upon
request, identify such inapplicable laws, and explain the
determination that such laws impede such correction.
For purposes of this paragraph, the term ``public housing
agency'' includes any developments or functions of a public
housing agency under any section of this title.
(3) Termination.--The appointment of a receiver pursuant to
this subsection may be terminated, upon the petition of any
party, when the court determines that all defaults have been
cured or the public housing agency will be able to make the
same amount of progress in correcting the management of the
housing as the receiver.
(f) Liability.--If the Secretary takes possession of an
agency pursuant to subsection (b)(2) or a receiver is
appointed pursuant to subsection (b)(5) for a public housing
agency, the Secretary or the receiver shall be
[[Page H2417]]
deemed to be acting in the capacity of the public housing
agency (and not in the official capacity as Secretary or
other official) and any liability incurred shall be a
liability of the public housing agency.
(g) Effectiveness.--The provisions of this section shall
apply with respect to actions taken before, on, or after the
effective date of this Act and shall apply to any receivers
appointed for a public housing agency before the effective
date of this Act.
SEC. 546. MANDATORY TAKEOVER OF CHRONICALLY TROUBLED PHA'S.
(a) Removal of Agency.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of this Act, not later than the expiration of the 180-day
period beginning on the effective date of this Act, the
Secretary shall take one of the following actions with
respect to each chronically troubled public housing agency:
(1) Contracting for management.--Solicit competitive
proposals for the management of the agency pursuant to
section 545(b)(1) and replace the management of the agency
pursuant to selection of such a proposal.
(2) Takeover.--Take possession of the agency pursuant to
section 545(b)(2) of such Act.
(3) Petition for receiver.--Petition for the appointment of
a receiver for the agency pursuant to section 545(b)(5).
(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``chronically troubled public housing agency'' means a public
housing agency that, as of the effective date of this Act, is
designated under section 6(j)(2) of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (as in effect immediately before the effective
date of the repeal under section 601(b) of this Act) as a
troubled public housing agency and has been so designated
continuously for the 3-year period ending upon the effective
date of this Act; except that such term does not include any
agency that owns or operates less than 1250 public housing
dwelling units and that the Secretary determines can, with a
reasonable amount of effort, make such improvements or
remedies as may be necessary to remove its designation as
troubled within 12 months.
SEC. 547. TREATMENT OF TROUBLED PHA'S.
(a) Effect of Troubled Status on CHAS.--The comprehensive
housing affordability strategy (or any consolidated plan
incorporating such strategy) for the State or unit of general
local government in which any troubled public housing agency
is located shall not be considered to comply with the
requirements under section 105 of the Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act unless such plan includes a
description of the manner in which the State or unit will
assist such troubled agency in improving its operations to
remove such designation.
(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``troubled public housing agency'' means a public housing
agency that--
(1) upon the effective date of this Act, is designated
under section 6(j)(2) of the United States Housing Act of
1937 (as in effect immediately before the effective date of
the repeal under section 601(b) of this Act) as a troubled
public housing agency; and
(2) is not a chronically troubled public housing agency, as
such term is defined in section 546(b) of this Act.
SEC. 548. MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS.
Each public housing agency shall keep such records as may
be reasonably necessary to disclose the amount and the
disposition by the agency of the proceeds of assistance
received pursuant to this Act and to ensure compliance with
the requirements of this Act.
SEC. 549. ANNUAL REPORTS REGARDING TROUBLED PHA'S.
The Secretary shall submit a report to the Congress
annually, as a part of the report of the Secretary under
section 8 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development
Act, that--
(1) identifies the public housing agencies that are
designated under section 533 as troubled or at-risk of
becoming troubled and the reasons for such designation; and
(2) describes any actions that have been taken in
accordance with sections 542, 543, 544, and 545.
SEC. 550. APPLICABILITY TO RESIDENT MANAGEMENT CORPORATIONS.
The Secretary shall apply the provisions of this subtitle
to resident management corporations in the same manner as
applied to public housing agencies.
SEC. 551. ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR HOUSING AUTHORITY OF NEW
ORLEANS.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary and the Housing Authority
of New Orleans (in this section referred to as the ``Housing
Authority'') shall, pursuant to the cooperative endeavor
agreement in effect between the Secretary and the Housing
Authority, establish an advisory council for the Housing
Authority of New Orleans (in this section referred to as the
``advisory council'') that complies with the requirements of
this section.
(b) Membership.--
(1) In general.--The advisory council shall be appointed by
the Secretary, not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and shall be composed of the following
members:
(A) The Inspector General of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (or the Inspector General's designee).
(B) Not more than 7 other members, who shall be selected
for appointment based on their experience in successfully
reforming troubled public housing agencies or in providing
affordable housing in coordination with State and local
governments, the private sector, affordable housing
residents, or local nonprofit organizations.
(2) Prohibition on additional pay.--Members of the advisory
council shall serve without compensation, but shall be
reimbursed for travel, subsistence, and other necessary
expenses incurred in the performance of their duties as
members of the Board using amounts from the Headquarters
Reserve fund pursuant to section 111(b)(4).
(c) Functions.--The advisory council shall--
(1) establish standards and guidelines for assessing the
performance of the Housing Authority in carrying out
operational, asset management, and financial functions for
purposes of the reports and finding under subsections (d) and
(e), respectively;
(2) provide advice, expertise, and recommendations to the
Housing Authority regarding the management, operation,
repair, redevelopment, revitalization, demolition, and
disposition of public housing developments of the Housing
Authority;
(3) report to the Congress under subsection (d) regarding
any progress of the Housing Authority in improving the
performance of its functions; and
(4) make a final finding to the Congress under subsection
(e) regarding the future of the Housing Authority.
(d) Quarterly Reports.--The advisory council shall report
to the Congress and the Secretary not less than every 3
months regarding the performance of the Housing Authority and
any progress of the authority in improving its performance
and carrying out its functions.
(e) Final Finding.--Upon the expiration of the 18-month
period that begins upon the appointment under subsection
(b)(1) of all members of the advisory council, the council
shall make and submit to the Congress and the Secretary a
finding of whether the Housing Authority has substantially
improved its performance, the performance of its functions,
and the overall condition of the Authority such that the
Authority should be allowed to continue to operate as the
manager of the public housing of the Authority. In making the
finding under this subsection, the advisory council shall
consider whether the Housing Authority has made sufficient
progress in the demolition and revitalization of the Desire
Homes development, the revitalization of the St. Thomas Homes
development, the appropriate allocation of operating subsidy
amounts, and the appropriate expending of modernization
amounts.
(f) Receivership.--If the advisory council finds under
subsection (e) that the Housing Authority has not
substantially improved its performance such that the
Authority should be allowed to continue to operate as the
manager of the public housing of the Authority, the Secretary
shall (notwithstanding section 545(a)) petition under section
545(b) for the appointment of a receiver for the Housing
Authority, which receivership shall be subject to the
provisions of section 545.
(g) Exemption.--The provisions of section 546 shall not
apply to the Housing Authority.
amendment no. 25 offered by mr. vento
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. Vento: Page 244, strike
line 1 and all that follows through line 8 on page 254, and
insert the following:
Subtitle C--Public Housing Management Assessment Program
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I understand that we have an
understanding or negotiation that we would be able to seek an outside
parameter of time, 20 minutes, to hear this amendment, 10 minutes to be
controlled by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. VENTO] and 10 minutes
to be controlled by myself.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 20 minutes
allocated to this be equally divided between the gentleman from New
York [Mr. LAZIO] and myself.
The CHAIRMAN. It is the Chair's understanding that this includes all
amendments thereto.
Mr. VENTO. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Minnesota?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. VENTO] is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment in this title V provides for a study of
the evaluation of the HUD evaluation system and performance of public
housing
[[Page H2418]]
agencies; provides a half million dollar study for that purpose, but
ironically then, and I think in a contradicting manner, moves ahead and
establishes an accreditation board, another Federal board of 12
appointed individuals to that particular board.
Mr. Chairman, this is a contradiction. This is basically either one
thing or the other. If we are going to do the study, we need to
evaluate what the consequences, the outcome, of that study is. I would
agree that a study is appropriate in this instance because there have
been many questions that have arisen with regards to HUD and the
performance evaluations that it has done of public housing agencies. In
fact, it is a rather new effort on their part that has existed for the
last 6 or 7 years to make that effort.
As we repeatedly heard with regard to 3,400 agencies, there are some
75 that are troubled, that house a considerable number of individuals
in the 4\1/2\ million housing units. But to set up a study and then to
automatically set up the board really predetermines what the outcome of
the study is. The study may in fact find other alternatives that are
preferable, for instance, in terms of reinforcing the existing
authority within HUD, but beyond that it simply opens up the
possibility of having two competing entities; that is to say HUD
itself, which has responsibility, and I might say the lines are not
clearly defined with regards to this board that is established, the
accreditation board, and HUD itself and the fighting between one
another as to what the requirements, who has what responsibilities.
It is in fact the report language that we have in the bill that the
majority's report language on page 115 goes on to even point out this
particular abnormality. It says if such study concludes, and I quote,
``If such study concludes that an accreditation system would be unwise
for the public housing program, then Congress will be in a position to
either change the focus of the accreditation board, this new Federal
agency, in accordance with the study's findings or to simply eliminate
the board.''
So here we have in one case a study that is suggesting that if the
study suggests something else that we are going to eliminate the board.
Well, I got news for my colleagues. Once this board gets appointed and
we have 12 appointed people by the Speaker, by the President, by the
ranking members in the House and Senate, they are going to be a board
in search of a mission. Once we set up this type of federal
bureaucracy, we are not going to dismiss it. They are going to be out
there looking for something to do.
So I mean I do not understand the purpose of doing this. As my
colleagues know, Congress is going to be back in session in 1998. My
colleague will still be, I guess, I assume, the chairman of the
subcommittee when this study comes back. We are going to spend a half
million dollars on it, and I think that, as my colleagues know, in
terms of trying to be objective about this we ought to at least try and
get the results of the study before we presuppose what the results are.
If that is the case, then why do they have the study in here? And I
would suggest that there are many contradictions in competition that
come up; in fact this has been pointed out repeatedly.
This board will have the power to mail, will have the power to hire
executives, to hire staff. As my colleagues know, if they love rules
and regulations, they are going to love this new bureaucracy that is
being set up here. As my colleagues know, if they do not agree with the
job HUD is doing, I think then maybe we need to take issue with that
with the new Secretary or the former Secretary, as we have. But to set
up another board, a redundant board, I think is the height of cynicism.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I wish every public housing authority throughout the
Nation was a high performing, competent housing authority that
performed to levels of excellence, and if that were the case, as the
saying goes, if men were angels, we would not need such a thing as an
accreditation board. But in fact there are some housing authorities
throughout the country that are not doing a very good job. Some have
been dismal failures and some need more help, some need more
encouragement.
In the academic world accreditation is used in order to ensure
minimum levels of excellence in terms of colleges and universities, and
it is a stamp of approval for people when they look at colleges and
universities or law schools or graduate schools. It gives people a
comfort level that they know that these institutions are performing at
these minimal levels. And they are staffed and developed by a system of
peers. The same is true with hospitals throughout the Nation.
But with housing that monitoring takes place in-house in HUD. HUD
itself monitors the housing authorities, and they have been doing an
exceptionally mediocre, some would say a quite poor, job of that
evaluation. In fact, according to the General Accounting Office in an
independent study, one-half of HUD's confirmatory reviews of their in-
house assessment program showed that their scores were shown to be
inaccurate. Fifty-eight percent of the time that the scores were shown
to be inaccurate, HUD lowered the scores by an average of 14 points or
a very substantial shift on a score of 1 to 100.
Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the evaluation procedure that
currently exists is faulty; it is inherently flawed, it is unreliable
and lacks credibility, and that is one of the reasons why housing
authorities that have been performing at very low standards are
permitted to continue to operate where we continue to be able to--not
just able, but we are almost forced or encouraged to throw good money
after bad to keep feeding housing authorities when they are performing
at very low management levels.
The National Commission on Severely Distressed Housing advocated an
accreditation system to better evaluate the effectiveness of public
housing management, and it felt that industry peers with experience
running housing authorities similar to those that they are assessing
are in a better position to develop performance standards, reevaluate
an organization against its own needs and requirements and
differentiate among conditions or issues of concern that may exist in a
development, but not in others, and also to offer technical assistance
in specifically each authority and help it to learn how to meet
accreditation standards and management. We need an independent
accreditation board.
We are also saying by authorizing a study within the course of this
section of the bill that we should have a study and have them report
back to us so that we can fully flesh out what this independent
accreditation board should have in terms of its overall and underlying
mission, but we do make a statement in this bill that we need
independence, that we need an accreditation board that ought to be
staffed by peers and people with industry experience, and it ought to
be used to help prompt housing authorities to be all that they can be
to perform to levels of excellence and for those who do not, to report
back so that we can take appropriate action to defund the housing
authorities that are doing a dismal job.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1800
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] the ranking Member.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me
thank my good friend, Mr. Vento, for once again taking on an issue
that, while it is perhaps off the beaten path in terms of normal debate
that we hear around the Congress of the United States, is nonetheless
central to I think the proper administration of housing programs in
this country.
People are so fond of beating up on HUD and beating up on badly-run
public housing agencies, badly run public housing authorities and
projects, they will simply jump at any possible solution to the
problem, no matter how well that idea is going to work. We have heard a
lot of rhetoric about the fact that we should be open to new ideas. I
say maybe the other side ought to be open to a bad idea, and perhaps
when they see a bad idea they ought to be willing to shut it down. This
qualifies as a bad idea.
We all agree that we need to tear down bad public housing and take
over
[[Page H2419]]
troubled housing authorities, but we can and we have been doing that
without creating a costly, independent and duplicative accreditation
board.
I support the Vento amendment that maintains H.R. 2's industry study
of current accreditation systems and makes recommendations to the
Congress on improving and monitoring the evaluation of public housing
authorities. Upon completion of the study, my colleagues have our
commitment to review the study in an expedited manner and move to
legislation, if needed, that would implement the study's thoughtful
suggestions.
We need to support Mr. Vento's amendment that strikes the
implementation of an accreditation board despite what the 6-month study
might recommend. The committee heard testimony from all of the national
representatives of public housing directors, such as the Council of
Large Public Housing Authorities, the Public Housing Directors
Association, the National Association of Redevelopment and Housing
Directors that opposed instituting H.R. 2's accreditation board.
Secretary Cuomo and HUD's Inspector General also offered testimony
against the independent evaluation board included in the board.
Secretary Cuomo recognized that an outside accreditation board would
replace the current responsibilities of HUD in evaluating PHA's, yet
the PHA's would remain fiscally accountable to HUD. With HUD's
oversight role so greatly diminished by establishing an accreditation
board, how could the Department certify that PHAs were responsible?
As we move toward a balanced budget, why are we mandating and paying
for an accreditation study and then refusing to see what the study says
before we move to policy development?
I just believe, when all is said and done, this is the worst kind of
legislating. It is saying, listen, we have an idea, we are such true
believers in our idea that we are going to create a study, and
regardless of what the study ends up suggesting or saying, we are going
to go forward with the idea nonetheless.
If we are going to do this, why not just go forward with the
accreditation board and at least save the taxpayers a study.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I would just say that effectively there have been no answers to the
questions that we have raised. The gentleman's own report language
suggests that if the study turns out differently, then we can come back
and repeal the board.
Mr. Chairman, it is a $500,000 study, I say to my colleagues. It is
going to set up appointments by the Speaker, by the minority leader, by
the President; 12 Members are going to be out there looking for a
mission. We know how these sorts of examples function.
I would say that my distinguished colleague from New York, Mr. Lazio,
the subcommittee chairman, pointed out that the GAO gave an evaluation
of HUD. How does this deal with changing HUD? HUD still has the
responsibility; and I might say in reference to this that HUD has, and
in this bill, in fact, there is even more authority being given to
local governments and to the public housing authorities. The
presumption is that they have the ability to in fact function in that
regard.
I would suggest that this is not accreditation. We have building
standards and many requirements that are local. This is a balancing act
that we do when we are dealing with housing. It is not as though that
they have absolute autonomy in terms of what they are doing, as we
might find in hospitals or in education institutions where in fact the
accreditation issue is even being devalued. Some of the best schools in
this country, incidentally, do not go through accreditation. There are
questions about the hospital process even today as we sit here, yet we
are going ahead and having a study.
I think that in fact that the study is quite appropriate and I
support it, but why not wait until we get it back to find out what the
best way to implement this is? Do we need another board within HUD,
without HUD? Do we need another level of bureaucracy? Do we need HUD in
essence competing with this accreditation board? That is what this
invites.
The lines of authority and the way that this is written is not clear.
I do not doubt the gentleman's good intentions in terms of what he is
trying to do, but I think it needs a further evaluation. That is why I
think that Secretary Cuomo has spoken out strongly against this; why
Secretary Cisneros was very concerned about this in the previous
example of this legislation. While the Inspector General of HUD, I
misspoke when I said the GAO, but the Inspector General of HUD has
suggested that it would not work, the GAO has pointed out that the
accreditation model also had questions about it, and most of the public
housing agencies, the housing authorities directors association, are
very concerned and have spoken out against this.
So I do not understand where the support for this comes, other than
the fact that if we get a study back in a year that is commissioned,
why can we not take up the study at that time and then allocate the
responsibilities appropriately in terms of how we evaluate housing
agencies? It is not all bad. They did pick St. Paul, MN, as the No. 1
public housing agency, I might say to my friend, so there are I think
some good aspects to it, but why are we setting this up and having the
motion that we will in essence lose control of it? We will have little
influence in that particular case. Adopt the Vento amendment.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Let me begin by saying that I know that the gentleman from Minnesota
offers the amendment not just in good faith, but with a good deal of
passion, and I appreciate his concern for housing. He has been a very
credible and productive member of the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services, and I appreciate him.
However, let me say this about the gentleman's amendment. We want to
make a statement here that we are going to hit the ground running. We
are not going to wait for further activity; we are not going to condemn
another generation to live in substandard conditions. We are going to
acknowledge the fact that the HUD evaluations of housing authorities
have been chronically flawed and faulty. That is not speculation, that
is fact. That is the conclusion of the General Accounting Office.
What we are saying in the bill is that we need an independent entity
to ensure and demand that the housing authorities are performing to
levels of excellence. I can understand why HUD might want to keep
control of this, and I can understand why some housing authorities
might not want to have an independent evaluation, but let me say that
is exactly what they need. It is unfair to the taxpayers and unfair to
the residents when housing authorities, performing under abysmal
standards, are evaluated by HUD and given passing grades, and that is
exactly what has been criticized by both the General Accounting Office
and by the inspector general when they found fault with the internal
accounting system of the evaluation system within HUD.
In fact, there are plenty of housing authorities, plenty of housing
authorities, according to the testimony that the committee heard, that
while they have received pretty decent scores, in fact they had poor
maintenance, windows broken, doors broken, graffiti, criminal activity,
poor management, money wasted, and because of the faulty evaluation,
and in my opinion, this member's opinion, because of a lack of
independence in terms of the evaluation, that was allowed to continue.
The net effect of that is that another generation is condemned to live
in poor conditions.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I cannot differ with the gentleman in terms
of some of the deplorable problems that have occurred, but is it not
the function of the Inspector General of HUD that has done some of the
criticism or the GAO or the oversight work of our committee that can,
in fact, hold them accountable? Is this the only means available?
If this study goes through the process and indicates that it is
preferable, I will join the gentleman in supporting it. But I think the
essence is, why do we not look at what the alternatives
[[Page H2420]]
are? Of course we know that HUD itself has renewed its efforts in these
areas.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is
absolutely the responsibility of the committee in terms of oversight.
It is absolutely the responsibility of the inspector general. It is
absolutely the responsibility of the General Accounting Office, to the
extent that they are directed to report back to Congress, to evaluate
the information that is provided.
The idea here is to ensure that we have credible, independent
information provided so that we can make reasonable judgments, and that
is why this bill stands for the independent accreditation system
outside of HUD that will report to us and allow us to make decent
decisions about what we should do when we have chronic failure.
Of course, H.R. 2 speaks to that. We fired the ones that are doing
the poor job, and what we should do with those housing authorities that
are doing a good job, and again H.R. 2 speaks to this, we should
provide more flexibility. But we should be getting additional
information upon which we can make judgments.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would ask of the
gentleman from New York, is it not true that in the legislation that
the gentleman wrote, that he included new regulations regarding FEMAC
that actually deal with the building inspection program that the
gentleman just cited in order to improve how those inspections are
being done?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, since we
have asked for a study to be implemented, we have interim regulations
in place so that there is not a void until the accreditation board is
fully operational, in which case that would substitute.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will
continue to yield, I appreciate that, but I would point out to the
gentleman that he has designed and pointed out some problems that have
existed; he has taken steps to try to deal with those problems, and
then he has said maybe the entire system needs to have a new look, and
he has created a $500,000 study to look at that new look. The trouble
is that the gentleman implements the results of the study before the
study has been completed.
So I just pose the question to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Lazio], if you are going to do that, why do the study? Why not just
save the taxpayers $500,000 and go forward?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, I
think it was Members of the minority who asked for the study, as a
matter of fact. I would say to the gentleman it was the Members of the
minority that asked for the study. We established the plan. Because we
have a study and we are trying to be flexible and respond to the
minority by having the study, we can obviously not implement the
accreditation board immediately, so we have interim rules and
regulations so that we do not have an absolute void in terms of
evaluation, and that all seems entirely responsible and rational, based
on some of the concerns that have been expressed by Members of the
minority.
We are happy to have the study in there to ensure that we have all
the relevant input that we might need in order to have the strongest
possible accreditation board, which would have independence and still
have credibility.
The CHAIRMAN. All time on this amendment has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 133, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]
will be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title V?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
following Members be permitted to offer their amendments to title V
even after the reading has progressed beyond that title, and that is
subject to discussions I have had with both of these Members, and I
have made a personal commitment that I will support this unanimous-
consent request. That would be the amendment by the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Towns] and the amendment by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Davis].
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
{time} 1815
The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments to title V, the
Clerk will designate title VI.
The text of title VI is as follows:
TITLE VI--REPEALS AND RELATED AMENDMENTS
Subtitle A--Repeals, Effective Date, and Savings Provisions
SEC. 601. EFFECTIVE DATE AND REPEAL OF UNITED STATES HOUSING
ACT OF 1937.
(a) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--This Act and the amendments made by this
Act shall take effect upon the expiration of the 6-month
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act,
except as otherwise provided in this section.
(2) Exception.--If the Secretary determines that action
under this paragraph is necessary for program administration
or to avoid hardship, the Secretary may, by notice in
accordance with subsection (d), delay the effective date of
any provision of this Act until a date not later than October
1, 1998.
(3) Specific effective dates.--Any provision of this Act
that specifically provides for the effective date of such
provision shall take effect in accordance with the terms of
the provision.
(b) Repeal of United States Housing Act of 1937.--Effective
upon the effective date under subsection (a)(1), the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.) is
repealed, subject to the conditions under subsection (c).
Subsection (a)(2) shall not apply to this subsection.
(c) Savings Provisions.--
(1) Obligations under 1937 act.--Any obligation of the
Secretary made under authority of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 shall continue to be governed by the provisions
of such Act, except that--
(A) notwithstanding the repeal of such Act, the Secretary
may make a new obligation under such Act upon finding that
such obligation is required--
(i) to protect the financial interests of the United States
or the Department of Housing and Urban Development; or
(ii) for the amendment, extension, or renewal of existing
obligations; and
(B) notwithstanding the repeal of such Act, the Secretary
may, in accordance with subsection (d), issue regulations and
other guidance and directives as if such Act were in effect
if the Secretary finds that such action is necessary to
facilitate the administration of obligations under such Act.
(2) Transition of funding.--Amounts appropriated under the
United States Housing Act of 1937 shall, upon repeal of such
Act, remain available for obligation under such Act in
accordance with the terms under which amounts were made
available.
(3) Cross references.--The provisions of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 shall remain in effect for purposes of
the validity of any reference to a provision of such Act in
any statute (other than such Act) until such reference is
modified by law or repealed.
(d) Publication and Effective Date of Notices of Delay.--
(1) Submission to congress.--The Secretary shall submit to
the Committee on Banking and Financial Services of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs of the Senate a copy of any proposed notice
under subsection (a)(2) or any proposed regulation, guidance,
or directive under subsection (c)(1)(B).
(2) Opportunity to review.--Such a regulation, notice,
guidance, or directive may not be published for comment or
for final effectiveness before or during the 15-calendar day
period beginning on the day after the date on which such
regulation, notice, guidance, or directive was submitted to
the Congress.
(3) Effective date.--No regulation, notice, guideline, or
directive may become effective until after the expiration of
the 30-calendar day period beginning on the day after the day
on which such rule or regulation is published as final.
(4) Waiver.--The provisions of paragraphs (2) and (3) may
be waived upon the written request of the Secretary, if
agreed to by the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of
both Committees.
(e) Modifications.--Notwithstanding any provision of this
Act or any annual contributions contract or other agreement
entered into by the Secretary and a public housing agency
pursuant to the provisions 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), the Secretary and the
agency may by mutual consent amend, supersede, or modify any
such agreement as appropriate to provide for assistance under
this Act, except that the Secretary and the agency may not
consent to
[[Page H2421]]
any such amendment, supersession, or modification that
substantially alters any outstanding obligations requiring
continued maintenance of the low-income character of any
public housing development and any such amendment,
supersession, or modification shall not be given effect.
(f) Section 8 Project-Based Assistance.--
(1) In general.--The provisions of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.) shall remain in
effect after the effectiveness of the repeal under subsection
(b) with respect to all section 8 project-based assistance,
pursuant to existing and future contracts, except as
otherwise provided by this section.
(2) Tenant selection preferences.--An owner of housing
assisted with section 8 project-based assistance shall give
preference, in the selection of tenants for units of such
projects that become available, according to any system of
local preferences established pursuant to section 223 by the
public housing agency having jurisdiction for the area in
which such projects are located.
(3) 1-year notification.--Paragraphs (9) and (10) of
section 8(c) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437f(c)) shall not be applicable to section 8
project-based assistance.
(4) Lease terms.--Leases for dwelling units assisted with
section 8 project-based assistance shall comply with the
provisions of paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 324 of this
Act and shall not be subject to the provisions of 8(d)(1)(B)
of the United States Housing Act of 1937.
(5) Termination of tenancy.--Any termination of tenancy of
a resident of a dwelling unit assisted with section 8
project-based assistance shall comply with the provisions of
section 324(2) and section 325 of this Act and shall not be
subject to the provisions of section 8(d)(1)(B) of the United
States Housing Act of 1937.
(6) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the term
``section 8 project-based assistance'' means assistance under
any of the following programs:
(A) The new construction or substantial rehabilitation
program under section 8(b)(2) of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (as in effect before October 1, 1983).
(B) The property disposition program under section 8(b) 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).
(C) The loan management set-aside program under subsections
(b) and (v) of section 8 of such Act.
(D) The project-based certificate program under section
8(d)(2) of such Act.
(E) The moderate rehabilitation program under section
8(e)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in
effect before October 1, 1991).
(F) The low-income housing preservation program under Low-
Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of
1990 or the provisions of the Emergency Low Income Housing
Preservation Act of 1987 (as in effect before November 28,
1990).
(G) 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), following conversion from
assistance under section 101 of the Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1965 or section 236(f)(2) of the National
Housing Act.
(g) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the
date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 602. OTHER REPEALS.
(a) In General.--The following provisions of law are hereby
repealed:
(1) Assisted housing allocation.--Section 213 of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
1439).
(2) Public housing rent waivers for police.--Section 519 of
the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42
U.S.C. 1437a-1).
(3) Treatment of certificate and voucher holders.--
Subsection (c) of section 183 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1987 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note).
(4) Excessive rent burden data.--Subsection (b) of section
550 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act
(42 U.S.C. 1437f note).
(5) Moving to opportunity for fair housing.--Section 152 of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
1437f note).
(6) Report regarding fair housing objectives.--Section 153
of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (42
U.S.C. 1437f note).
(7) Special projects for elderly or handicapped families.--
Section 209 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974 (42 U.S.C. 1438).
(8) Access to pha books.--Section 816 of the Housing Act of
1954 (42 U.S.C. 1435).
(9) Miscellaneous provisions.--Subsections (b)(1) and (d)
of section 326 of the Housing and Community Development
Amendments of 1981 (Public Law 97-35, 95 Stat. 406; 42 U.S.C.
1437f note).
(10) Payment for development managers.--Section 329A of the
Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1981 (42
U.S.C. 1437j-1).
(11) Procurement of insurance by pha's.--In the item
relating to ``administrative provisions'' under the heading
``Management and Administration'' in title II of the
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act,
1991, the penultimate undesignated paragraph of such item
(Public Law 101-507; 104 Stat. 1369).
(12) Public housing childhood development.--Section 222 of
the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of 1983 (12 U.S.C.
1701z-6 note).
(13) Indian housing childhood development.--Section 518 of
the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (12
U.S.C. 1701z-6 note).
(14) Public housing comprehensive transition
demonstration.--Section 126 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1987 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note).
(15) Public housing one-stop perinatal services
demonstration.--Section 521 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 1437t note).
(16) Public housing mincs demonstration.--Section 522 of
the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42
U.S.C. 1437f note).
(17) Public housing energy efficiency demonstration.--
Section 523 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 1437g note).
(18) Omaha homeownership demonstration.--Section 132 of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (Public Law
102-550; 106 Stat. 3712).
(19) Public and assisted housing youth sports programs.--
Section 520 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 11903a).
(20) Frost-leland provisions.--Section 415 of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development--Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1988 (Public Law 100-202; 101
Stat. 1329-213); except that, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, beginning on the date of enactment of this
Act, the public housing projects described in section 415 of
such appropriations Act (as such section existed immediately
before the date of enactment of this Act) shall be eligible
for demolition--
(A) under section 14 of the United States Housing Act of
1937 (as such section existed upon the enactment of this
Act); and
(B) under section 9 of the United States Housing Act of
1937.
(21) Multifamily financing.--The penultimate sentence of
section 302(b)(2) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.
1717(b)(2)) and the penultimate sentence of section 305(a)(2)
of the Emergency Home Finance Act of 1970 (12 U.S.C.
1454(a)(2)).
(22) Conflicts of interest.--Subsection (c) of section 326
of the Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1981
(42 U.S.C. 1437f note).
(23) Conversion of public housing.--Section 202 of the
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act,
1996 (42 U.S.C. 1437l note) (enacted as section 101(e) of
Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of
1996 (Public Law 104-134; 110 Stat. 1321-279)).
(b) Savings Provision.--Except to the extent otherwise
provided in this Act--
(1) the repeals made by subsection (a) shall not affect any
legally binding obligations entered into before the effective
date of this Act; and
(2) any funds or activities subject to a provision of law
repealed by subsection (a) shall continue to be governed by
the provision as in effect immediately before such repeal.
Subtitle B--Other Provisions Relating to Public Housing and Rental
Assistance Programs
SEC. 621. ALLOCATION OF ELDERLY HOUSING AMOUNTS.
Section 202(l) of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C.
1701q(l)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(4) Consideration in allocating assistance.--Assistance
under this section shall be allocated in a manner that
ensures that the awards of the assistance are made for
projects of sufficient size to accommodate facilities for
supportive services appropriate to the needs of frail elderly
residents.''.
SEC. 622. PET OWNERSHIP.
Section 227 of the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of
1983 (12 U.S.C. 1701r-1) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 227. PET OWNERSHIP IN FEDERALLY ASSISTED RENTAL
HOUSING.
``(a) Right of Ownership.--A resident of a dwelling unit in
federally assisted rental housing may own common household
pets or have common household pets present in the dwelling
unit of such resident, subject to the reasonable requirements
of the owner of the federally assisted rental housing and
providing that the resident maintains the animals responsibly
and in compliance with applicable local and State public
health, animal control, and anticruelty laws. Such reasonable
requirements may include requiring payment of a nominal fee
and pet deposit by residents owning or having pets present,
to cover the operating costs to the project relating to the
presence of pets and to establish an escrow account for
additional such costs not otherwise covered, respectively.
Notwithstanding section 225(d) of the Housing Opportunity and
Responsibility Act of 1997, a public housing agency may not
grant any exemption under such section from payment, in whole
or in part, of any fee or deposit required pursuant to the
preceding sentence.
``(b) Prohibition Against Discrimination.--No owner of
federally assisted rental housing may restrict or
discriminate against any person in connection with admission
to, or continued occupancy of, such housing by
[[Page H2422]]
reason of the ownership of common household pets by, or the
presence of such pets in the dwelling unit of, such person.
``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the
following definitions shall apply:
``(1) Federally assisted rental housing.--The term
`federally assisted rental housing' means any multifamily
rental housing project that is--
``(A) public housing (as such term is defined in section
103 of the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act of
1997);
``(B) assisted with project-based assistance pursuant to
section 601(f) of the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility
Act of 1997 or 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 the Housing Opportunity and
Responsibility Act of 1997);
``(C) assisted under section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959
(as amended by section 801 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act);
``(D) assisted under section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959
(as in effect before the enactment of the Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act);
``(E) assisted under title V of the Housing Act of 1949; or
``(F) insured, assisted, or held by the Secretary or a
State or State agency under section 236 of the National
Housing Act.
``(2) Owner.--The term `owner' means, with respect to
federally assisted rental housing, the entity or private
person, including a cooperative or public housing agency,
that has the legal right to lease or sublease dwelling units
in such housing (including a manager of such housing having
such right).
``(d) Regulations.--This section shall take effect upon the
date of the effectiveness of regulations issued by the
Secretary to carry out this section. Such regulations shall
be issued not later than the expiration of the 1-year period
beginning on the date of the enactment of the Housing
Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 1997 and after notice
and opportunity for public comment in accordance with the
procedure under section 553 of title 5, United States Code,
applicable to substantive rules (notwithstanding subsections
(a)(2), (b)(B), and (d)(3) of such section).''.
SEC. 623. REVIEW OF DRUG ELIMINATION PROGRAM CONTRACTS.
(a) Requirement.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development shall investigate all security contracts awarded
by grantees under the Public and Assisted Housing Drug
Elimination Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 11901 et seq.) that are
public housing agencies that own or operate more than 4,500
public housing dwelling units--
(1) to determine whether the contractors under such
contracts have complied with all laws and regulations
regarding prohibition of discrimination in hiring practices;
(2) to determine whether such contracts were awarded in
accordance with the applicable laws and regulations regarding
the award of such contracts;
(3) to determine how many such contracts were awarded under
emergency contracting procedures;
(4) to evaluate the effectiveness of the contracts; and
(5) to provide a full accounting of all expenses under the
contracts.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete the
investigation required under subsection (a) and submit a
report to the Congress regarding the findings under the
investigation. With respect to each such contract, the report
shall (1) state whether the contract was made and is
operating, or was not made or is not operating, in full
compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and (2) for
each contract that the Secretary determines is in such
compliance issue a personal certification of such compliance
by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
(c) Actions.--For each contract that is described in the
report under subsection (b) as not made or not operating in
full compliance with applicable laws and regulations, the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall promptly
take any actions available under law or regulation that are
necessary--
(1) to bring such contract into compliance; or
(2) to terminate the contract.
(d) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the
date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 624. AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING DRUG
ELIMINATION ACT OF 1990.
(a) Short Title, Purposes, and Authority To Make Grants.--
Chapter 2 of subtitle C of title V of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act
of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11901 et seq.) is amended by striking the
chapter heading and all that follows through section 5123 and
inserting the following:
``CHAPTER 2--COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS AGAINST CRIME
``SEC. 5121. SHORT TITLE.
``This chapter may be cited as the `Community Partnerships
Against Crime Act of 1997'.
``SEC. 5122. PURPOSES.
``The purposes of this chapter are to--
``(1) improve the quality of life for the vast majority of
law-abiding public housing residents by reducing the levels
of fear, violence, and crime in their communities;
``(2) broaden the scope of the Public and Assisted Housing
Drug Elimination Act of 1990 to apply to all types of crime,
and not simply crime that is drug-related; and
``(3) reduce crime and disorder in and around public
housing through the expansion of community-oriented policing
activities and problem solving.
``SEC. 5123. AUTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS.
``The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may make
grants in accordance with the provisions of this chapter for
use in eliminating crime in and around public housing and
other federally assisted low-income housing projects to (1)
public housing agencies, and (2) private, for-profit and
nonprofit owners of federally assisted low-income housing.''.
(b) Eligible Activities.--
(1) In general.--Section 5124(a) of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act
of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11903(a)) is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting
``and around'' after ``used in'';
(B) in paragraph (3), by inserting before the semicolon the
following: ``, including fencing, lighting, locking, and
surveillance systems'';
(C) in paragraph (4), by striking subparagraph (A) and
inserting the following new subparagraph:
``(A) to investigate crime; and'';
(D) in paragraph (6)--
(i) by striking ``in and around public or other federally
assisted low-income housing projects''; and
(ii) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon; and
(E) by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following
new paragraphs:
``(7) providing funding to nonprofit public housing
resident management corporations and resident councils to
develop security and crime prevention programs involving site
residents;
``(8) the employment or utilization of one or more
individuals, including law enforcement officers, made
available by contract or other cooperative arrangement with
State or local law enforcement agencies, to engage in
community- and problem-oriented policing involving
interaction with members of the community in proactive crime
control and prevention activities;
``(9) programs and activities for or involving youth,
including training, education, recreation and sports, career
planning, and entrepreneurship and employment activities and
after school and cultural programs; and
``(10) service programs for residents that address the
contributing factors of crime, including programs for job
training, education, drug and alcohol treatment, and other
appropriate social services.''.
(2) Other pha-owned housing.--Section 5124(b) of the Anti-
Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11903(b)) is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``drug-related crime in'' and inserting
``crime in and around''; and
(ii) by striking ``paragraphs (1) through (7)'' and
inserting ``paragraphs (1) through (10)''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``drug-related'' and
inserting ``criminal''.
(c) Grant Procedures.--Section 5125 of the Anti-Drug Abuse
Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11904) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 5125. GRANT PROCEDURES.
``(a) PHA's With 250 or More Units.--
``(1) Grants.--In each fiscal year, the Secretary shall
make a grant under this chapter from any amounts available
under section 5131(b)(1) for the fiscal year to each of the
following public housing agencies:
``(A) New applicants.--Each public housing agency that owns
or operates 250 or more public housing dwelling units and
has--
``(i) submitted an application to the Secretary for a grant
for such fiscal year, which includes a 5-year crime
deterrence and reduction plan under paragraph (2); and
``(ii) had such application and plan approved by the
Secretary.
``(B) Renewals.--Each public housing agency that owns or
operates 250 or more public housing dwelling units and for
which--
``(i) a grant was made under this chapter for the preceding
Federal fiscal year;
``(ii) the term of the 5-year crime deterrence and
reduction plan applicable to such grant includes the fiscal
year for which the grant under this subsection is to be made;
and
``(iii) the Secretary has determined, pursuant to a
performance review under paragraph (4), that during the
preceding fiscal year the agency has substantially fulfilled
the requirements under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph
(4).
Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), the Secretary may
make a grant under this chapter to a public housing agency
that owns or operates 250 or more public housing dwelling
units only if the agency includes in the application for the
grant information that demonstrates, to the satisfaction of
the Secretary, that the agency has a need for the grant
amounts based on generally recognized crime statistics
showing that (I) the crime rate for the public housing
developments of the agency (or the immediate neighborhoods in
which such developments are located) is higher than the crime
rate for the jurisdiction in which the agency operates, (II)
the crime rate for the developments (or such neighborhoods)
is increasing over a period of sufficient duration to
indicate a general trend, or (III) the operation of the
program under this chapter substantially contributes to the
reduction of crime.
``(2) 5-year crime deterrence and reduction plan.--Each
application for a grant
[[Page H2423]]
under this subsection shall contain a 5-year crime deterrence
and reduction plan. The plan shall be developed with the
participation of residents and appropriate law enforcement
officials. The plan shall describe, for the public housing
agency submitting the plan--
``(A) the nature of the crime problem in public housing
owned or operated by the public housing agency;
``(B) the building or buildings of the public housing
agency affected by the crime problem;
``(C) the impact of the crime problem on residents of such
building or buildings; and
``(D) the actions to be taken during the term of the plan
to reduce and deter such crime, which shall include actions
involving residents, law enforcement, and service providers.
The term of a plan shall be the period consisting of 5
consecutive fiscal years, which begins with the first fiscal
year for which funding under this chapter is provided to
carry out the plan.
``(3) Amount.--In any fiscal year, the amount of the grant
for a public housing agency receiving a grant pursuant to
paragraph (1) shall be the amount that bears the same ratio
to the total amount made available under section 5131(b)(1)
as the total number of public dwelling units owned or
operated by such agency bears to the total number of dwelling
units owned or operated by all public housing agencies that
own or operate 250 or more public housing dwelling units that
are approved for such fiscal year.
``(4) Performance review.--For each fiscal year, the
Secretary shall conduct a performance review of the
activities carried out by each public housing agency
receiving a grant pursuant to this subsection to determine
whether the agency--
``(A) has carried out such activities in a timely manner
and in accordance with its 5-year crime deterrence and
reduction plan; and
``(B) has a continuing capacity to carry out such plan in a
timely manner.
``(5) Submission of applications.--The Secretary shall
establish such deadlines and requirements for submission of
applications under this subsection.
``(6) Review and determination.--The Secretary shall review
each application submitted under this subsection upon
submission and shall approve the application unless the
application and the 5-year crime deterrence and reduction
plan are inconsistent with the purposes of this chapter or
any requirements established by the Secretary or the
information in the application or plan is not substantially
complete. Upon approving or determining not to approve an
application and plan submitted under this subsection, the
Secretary shall notify the public housing agency submitting
the application and plan of such approval or disapproval.
``(7) Disapproval of applications.--If the Secretary
notifies an agency that the application and plan of the
agency is not approved, not later than the expiration of the
15-day period beginning upon such notice of disapproval, the
Secretary shall also notify the agency, in writing, of the
reasons for the disapproval, the actions that the agency
could take to comply with the criteria for approval, and the
deadlines for such actions.
``(8) Failure to approve or disapprove.--If the Secretary
fails to notify an agency of approval or disapproval of an
application and plan submitted under this subsection before
the expiration of the 60-day period beginning upon the
submission of the plan or fails to provide notice under
paragraph (7) within the 15-day period under such paragraph
to an agency whose application has been disapproved, the
application and plan shall be considered to have been
approved for purposes of this section.
``(b) PHA's With Fewer Than 250 Units and Owners of
Federally Assisted Low-Income Housing.--
``(1) Applications and plans.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under this chapter, a public housing agency that owns
or operates fewer than 250 public housing dwelling units or
an owner of federally assisted low-income housing shall
submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such
manner, and accompanied by such additional information as the
Secretary may require. The application shall include a plan
for addressing the problem of crime in and around the housing
for which the application is submitted, describing in detail
activities to be conducted during the fiscal year for which
the grant is requested.
``(2) Grants for pha's with fewer than 250 units.--In each
fiscal year the Secretary may, to the extent amounts are
available under section 5131(b)(2), make grants under this
chapter to public housing agencies that own or operate fewer
than 250 public housing dwelling units and have submitted
applications under paragraph (1) that the Secretary has
approved pursuant to the criteria under paragraph (4).
``(3) Grants for federally assisted low-income housing.--In
each fiscal year the Secretary may, to the extent amounts are
available under section 5131(b)(3), make grants under this
chapter to owners of federally assisted low-income housing
that have submitted applications under paragraph (1) that the
Secretary has approved pursuant to the criteria under
paragraphs (4) and (5).
``(4) Criteria for approval of applications.--The Secretary
shall determine whether to approve each application under
this subsection on the basis of--
``(A) the extent of the crime problem in and around the
housing for which the application is made;
``(B) the quality of the plan to address the crime problem
in the housing for which the application is made;
``(C) the capability of the applicant to carry out the
plan; and
``(D) the extent to which the tenants of the housing, the
local government, local community-based nonprofit
organizations, local tenant organizations representing
residents of neighboring projects that are owned or assisted
by the Secretary, and the local community support and
participate in the design and implementation of the
activities proposed to be funded under the application.
In each fiscal year, the Secretary may give preference to
applications under this subsection for housing made by
applicants who received a grant for such housing for the
preceding fiscal year under this subsection or under the
provisions of this chapter as in effect immediately before
the date of the enactment of the Housing Opportunity and
Responsibility Act of 1997.
``(5) Additional criteria for federally assisted low-income
housing.--In addition to the selection criteria under
paragraph (4), the Secretary may establish other criteria for
evaluating applications submitted by owners of federally
assisted low-income housing, except that such additional
criteria shall be designed only to reflect--
``(A) relevant differences between the financial resources
and other characteristics of public housing agencies and
owners of federally assisted low-income housing; or
``(B) relevant differences between the problem of crime in
public housing administered by such authorities and the
problem of crime in federally assisted low-income housing.''.
(d) Definitions.--Section 5126 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act
of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11905) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2);
(2) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``section'' before
``221(d)(4)'';
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) (as so amended)
as paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Public housing agency.--The term `public housing
agency' has the meaning given the term in section 103 of the
Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 1997.''.
(e) Implementation.--Section 5127 of the Anti-Drug Abuse
Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11906) is amended by striking
``Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act'' and
inserting ``Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act of
1997''.
(f) Reports.--Section 5128 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of
1988 (42 U.S.C. 11907) is amended--
(1) by striking ``drug-related crime in'' and inserting
``crime in and around''; and
(2) by striking ``described in section 5125(a)'' and
inserting ``for the grantee submitted under subsection (a) or
(b) of section 5125, as applicable''.
(g) Funding and Program Sunset.--Chapter 2 of subtitle C of
title V of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 is amended by
striking section 5130 (42 U.S.C. 11909) and inserting the
following new section:
``SEC. 5130. FUNDING.
``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this chapter
$290,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001,
and 2002.
``(b) Allocation.--Of any amounts available, or that the
Secretary is authorized to use, to carry out this chapter in
any fiscal year--
``(1) 85 percent shall be available only for assistance
pursuant to section 5125(a) to public housing agencies that
own or operate 250 or more public housing dwelling units;
``(2) 10 percent shall be available only for assistance
pursuant to section 5125(b)(2) to public housing agencies
that own or operate fewer than 250 public housing dwelling
units; and
``(3) 5 percent shall be available only for assistance to
federally assisted low-income housing pursuant to section
5125(b)(3).
``(c) Retention of Proceeds of Asset Forfeitures by
Inspector General.--Notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31,
United States Code, or any other provision of law affecting
the crediting of collections, the proceeds of forfeiture
proceedings and funds transferred to the Office of Inspector
General of the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
as a participating agency, from the Department of Justice
Assets Forfeiture Fund or the Department of the Treasury
Forfeiture Fund, as an equitable share from the forfeiture of
property in investigations in which the Office of Inspector
General participates, shall be deposited to the credit of the
Office of Inspector General for Operation Safe Home
activities authorized under the Inspector General Act of
1978, as amended, to remain available until expended.''.
(h) Conforming Amendments.--The table of contents in
section 5001 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law
100-690; 102 Stat. 4295) is amended--
(1) by striking the item relating to the heading for
chapter 2 of subtitle C of title V and inserting the
following:
``Chapter 2--Community Partnerships Against Crime'';
(2) by striking the item relating to section 5122 and
inserting the following new item:
``Sec. 5122. Purposes.'';
[[Page H2424]]
(3) by striking the item relating to section 5125 and
inserting the following new item:
``Sec. 5125. Grant procedures.'';
and
(4) by striking the item relating to section 5130 and
inserting the following new item:
``Sec. 5130. Funding.''.
(i) Treatment of NOFA.--The cap limiting assistance under
the Notice of Funding Availability issued by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development in the Federal Register of
April 8, 1996, shall not apply to a public housing agency
within an area designated as a high intensity drug
trafficking area under section 1005(c) of the Anti-Drug Abuse
Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1504(c)).
(j) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made
by this section shall take effect on the date of the
enactment of this Act.
Subtitle C--Limitations Relating to Occupancy in Federally Assisted
Housing
SEC. 641. SCREENING OF APPLICANTS.
(a) Ineligibility Because of Eviction.--Any household or
member of a household evicted from federally assisted housing
(as such term is defined in section 645) shall not be
eligible for federally assisted housing--
(1) in the case of eviction by reason of drug-related
criminal activity, for a period of not less than 3 years that
begins on the date of such eviction, unless the evicted
member of the household successfully completes a
rehabilitation program; and
(2) in the case of an eviction for other serious violations
of the terms or conditions of the lease, for a reasonable
period of time, as determined by the public housing agency or
owner of the federally assisted housing, as applicable.
The requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) may be waived if
the circumstances leading to eviction no longer exist.
(b) Ineligibility of Illegal Drug Users and Alcohol
Users.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a public housing agency or an owner of federally
assisted housing, or both, as determined by the Secretary,
shall establish standards that prohibit admission to the
program or admission to federally assisted housing for any
household with a member--
(A) who the public housing agency or owner determines is
engaging in the illegal use of a controlled substance; or
(B) with respect to whom the public housing agency or owner
determines that it has reasonable cause to believe that such
household member's illegal use (or pattern of illegal use) of
a controlled substance, or abuse (or pattern of abuse) of
alcohol, would interfere with the health, safety, or right to
peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents.
(2) Consideration of rehabilitation.--In determining
whether, pursuant to paragraph (1)(B), to deny admission to
the program or to federally assisted housing to any household
based on a pattern of illegal use of a controlled substance
or a pattern of abuse of alcohol by a household member, a
public housing agency or an owner may consider whether such
household member--
(A) has successfully completed an accredited drug or
alcohol rehabilitation program (as applicable) and is no
longer engaging in the illegal use of a controlled substance
or abuse of alcohol (as applicable);
(B) has otherwise been rehabilitated successfully and is no
longer engaging in the illegal use of a controlled substance
or abuse of alcohol (as applicable); or
(C) is participating in an accredited drug or alcohol
rehabilitation program (as applicable) and is no longer
engaging in the illegal use of a controlled substance or
abuse of alcohol (as applicable).
(c) Authority To Deny Admission to Criminal Offenders.--
Except as provided in subsections (a) and (b) and in addition
to any other authority to screen applicants, in selecting
among applicants for admission to the program or to federally
assisted housing, if the public housing agency or owner of
such housing (as applicable) determines that an applicant or
any member of the applicant's household is or was, during a
reasonable time preceding the date when the applicant
household would otherwise be selected for admission, engaged
in any criminal activity (including drug-related criminal
activity), the public housing agency or owner may--
(1) deny such applicant admission to the program or to
federally assisted housing;
(2) consider the applicant (for purposes of any waiting
list) as not having applied for the program or such housing;
and
(3) after the expiration of the reasonable period beginning
upon such activity, require the applicant, as a condition of
admission to the program or to federally assisted housing, to
submit to the public housing agency or owner evidence
sufficient (as the Secretary shall by regulation provide) to
ensure that the individual or individuals in the applicant's
household who engaged in criminal activity for which denial
was made under paragraph (1) have not engaged in any criminal
activity during such reasonable period.
(d) Authority To Require Access to Criminal Records.--A
public housing agency and an owner of federally assisted
housing may require, as a condition of providing admission to
the program or admission to or occupancy in federally
assisted housing, that each adult member of the household
provide a signed, written authorization for the public
housing agency to obtain the records described in section
644(a) regarding such member of the household from the
National Crime Information Center, police departments, other
law enforcement agencies, and State registration agencies
referred to in such section. In the case of an owner of
federally assisted housing that is not a public housing
agency, the owner shall request the public housing agency
having jurisdiction over the area within which the housing is
located to obtain the records pursuant to section 644.
(e) Admission Based on Disability.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, for purposes of determining eligibility for admission to
federally assisted housing, a person shall not be considered
to have a disability or a handicap solely because of the
prior or current illegal use of a controlled substance (as
defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act) or
solely by reason of the prior or current use of alcohol.
(2) Continued occupancy.--This subsection may not be
construed to prohibit the continued occupancy of any person
who is a resident in assisted housing on the effective date
of this Act.
SEC. 642. TERMINATION OF TENANCY AND ASSISTANCE FOR ILLEGAL
DRUG USERS AND ALCOHOL ABUSERS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a public
housing agency or an owner of federally assisted housing (as
applicable), shall establish standards or lease provisions
for continued assistance or occupancy in federally assisted
housing that allow the agency or owner (as applicable) to
terminate the tenancy or assistance for any household with a
member--
(1) who the public housing agency or owner determines is
engaging in the illegal use of a controlled substance; or
(2) whose illegal use of a controlled substance, or whose
abuse of alcohol, is determined by the public housing agency
or owner to interfere with the health, safety, or right to
peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents.
SEC. 643. LEASE REQUIREMENTS.
In addition to any other applicable lease requirements,
each lease for a dwelling unit in federally assisted housing
shall provide that--
(1) the owner may not terminate the tenancy except for
violation of the terms or conditions of the lease, violation
of applicable Federal, State, or local law, or for other good
cause; and
(2) grounds for termination of tenancy shall include any
criminal or other activity, engaged in by the tenant, any
member of the tenant's household, any guest, or any other
person under the control of the household, that--
(A) threatens the health or safety of, or right to peaceful
enjoyment of the premises by, other tenant or employees of
the owner or other manager of the housing;
(B) threatens the health or safety of, or right to peaceful
enjoyment of their premises by, persons residing in the
immediate vicinity of the premises; or
(C) with respect only to activity engaged in by the tenant
or any member of the tenant's household, is criminal activity
on or off the premises.
SEC. 644. AVAILABILITY OF CRIMINAL RECORDS FOR TENANT
SCREENING AND EVICTION.
(a) In General.--
(1) Criminal conviction information.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law other than paragraphs (3) and (4),
upon the request of a public housing agency, the National
Crime Information Center, a police department, and any other
law enforcement agency shall provide to the public housing
agency information regarding the criminal conviction records
of an adult applicant for, or tenants of, federally assisted
housing for purposes of applicant screening, lease
enforcement, and eviction, but only if the public housing
agency requests such information and presents to such Center,
department, or agency a written authorization, signed by such
applicant, for the release of such information to the public
housing agency or other owner of the federally assisted
housing.
(2) Information regarding crimes against children.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law other than
paragraphs (3) and (4), upon the request of a public housing
agency, a State law enforcement agency designated as a
registration agency under a State registration program under
subtitle A of title XVII of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14071), and any local law
enforcement agency authorized by the State agency shall
provide to a public housing agency the information collected
under or such State registration program, regarding an adult
applicant for, or tenant of, federally assisted housing for
purposes of applicant screening, lease enforcement, and
eviction, but only if the public housing agency requests such
information and presents to such State registration agency or
other local law enforcement agency a written authorization,
signed by such applicant, for the release of such information
to the public housing agency or other owner of the federally
assisted housing.
(3) Delayed effective date for owners other than pha's.--
The provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) authorizing
obtaining information for owners of federally assisted
housing other than public housing agencies shall not take
effect before--
(A) the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on the
date of enactment of this Act; and
[[Page H2425]]
(B) the Secretary and the Attorney General of the United
States have determined that access to such information is
feasible for such owners and have provided for the terms of
release of such information to owners.
(4) Exception.--The information provided under paragraphs
(1), (2), and (3) shall include information regarding any
criminal conviction of a juvenile only to the extent that the
release of such information is authorized under the law of
the applicable State, tribe, or locality.
(b) Confidentiality.--A public housing agency or owner
receiving information under this section may use such
information only for the purposes provided in this section
and such information may not be disclosed to any person who
is not an officer, employee, or authorized representative of
the agency or owner and who has a job-related need to have
access to the information in connection with admission of
applicants, eviction of tenants, or termination of
assistance. For judicial eviction proceedings, disclosures
may be made to the extent necessary. The Secretary shall, by
regulation, establish procedures necessary to ensure that
information provided under this section to a public housing
agency or owner is used, and confidentiality of such
information is maintained, as required under this section.
(c) Opportunity to Dispute.--Before an adverse action is
taken with regard to assistance under for federally assisted
housing on the basis of a criminal record, the public housing
agency or owner shall provide the tenant or applicant with a
copy of the criminal record and an opportunity to dispute the
accuracy and relevance of that record.
(d) Fee.--A public housing agency may be charged a
reasonable fee for information provided under subsection (a).
A public housing agency may require an owner of federally
assisted housing (that is not a public housing agency) to pay
such fee for any information that the agency acquires for the
owner pursuant to section 641(e) and subsection (a) of this
section.
(e) Records Management.--Each public housing agency and
owner of federally assisted housing that receives criminal
record information pursuant to this section shall establish
and implement a system of records management that ensures
that any criminal record received by the agency or owner is--
(1) maintained confidentially;
(2) not misused or improperly disseminated; and
(3) destroyed in a timely fashion, once the purpose for
which the record was requested has been accomplished.
(f) Penalty.--Any person who knowingly and willfully
requests or obtains any information concerning an applicant
for, or tenant of, federally assisted housing pursuant to the
authority under this section under false pretenses, or any
person who knowingly and willfully discloses any such
information in any manner to any individual not entitled
under any law to receive it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
and fined not more than $5,000. The term ``person'' as used
in this subsection shall include an officer, employee, or
authorized representative of any public housing agency or
owner.
(g) Civil Action.--Any applicant for, or tenant of,
federally assisted housing affected by (1) a negligent or
knowing disclosure of information referred to in this section
about such person by an officer, employee, or authorized
representative of any public housing agency or owner of
federally assisted housing, which disclosure is not
authorized by this section, or (2) any other negligent or
knowing action that is inconsistent with this section, may
bring a civil action for damages and such other relief as may
be appropriate against any public housing agency or owner
responsible for such unauthorized action. The district court
of the United States in the district in which the affected
applicant or tenant resides, in which such unauthorized
action occurred, or in which the officer, employee, or
representative alleged to be responsible for any such
unauthorized action resides, shall have jurisdiction in such
matters. Appropriate relief that may be ordered by such
district courts shall include reasonable attorney's fees and
other litigation costs.
(h) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``adult'' means a person who is 18 years of age or older, or
who has been convicted of a crime as an adult under any
Federal, State, or tribal law.
SEC. 645. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this subtitle, the following definitions
shall apply:
(1) Federally assisted housing.--The term ``federally
assisted housing'' means a dwelling unit--
(A) in public housing (as such term is defined in section
102);
(B) assisted with choice-based housing assistance under
title III;
(C) in housing that is provided project-based 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) or pursuant to section 601(f) of
this Act, including new construction and substantial
rehabilitation projects;
(D) in housing that is assisted under section 202 of the
Housing Act of 1959 (as amended by section 801 of the
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act);
(E) in housing that is assisted under section 202 of the
Housing Act of 1959, as such section existed before the
enactment of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act;
(F) in housing that is assisted under section 811 of the
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act;
(G) in housing financed by a loan or mortgage insured under
section 221(d)(3) of the National Housing Act that bears
interest at a rate determined under the proviso of section
221(d)(5) of such Act;
(H) in housing insured, assisted, or held by the Secretary
or a State or State agency under section 236 of the National
Housing Act;
(I) for purposes only of subsections 641(c), 641(d), 643,
and 644, in housing assisted under section 515 of the Housing
Act of 1949.
(2) Owner.--The term ``owner'' means, with respect to
federally assisted housing, the entity or private person
(including a cooperative or public housing agency) that has
the legal right to lease or sublease dwelling units in such
housing.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Housing
Opportunity and Responsibility Act [H.R. 2]. Among many things, H.R. 2
would dismantle the 30-year bedrock principle of U.S. housing policy--
the Brooke amendment. With the punitive undertones of the bill and
several proposed amendments, H.R. 2 represents Welfare Reform Part II .
. . punishing the less fortunate for being poor. Using such euphemisms
as local flexibility, income diversity, work incentives, and self-
sufficiency, H.R. 2 would shamefully take from those who have the least
resources and are the most vulnerable the right to something as basic
as food and clothing: a decent place to sleep at night.
If we are going to have an honest debate about the best way to
allocate federal resources to address the housing needs of this nation,
then we need to place all of the facts on the table: U.S. housing
policy is embarrassingly inequitable. Despite the low-income housing
needs of this country, only 20 percent of housing outlays is allocated
for providing housing assistance and subsidies to lower-income
families. The other 80 percent is tax expenditures enjoyed by wealthier
families who are able to deduct mortgage interest, property taxes,
capital gains, and other investor-homeowner ``perks'' from their tax
liabilities. The result of this unjust, inequitable housing policy:
Over 70 percent of the families who qualify for low-income housing
assistance are not receiving it.
Without regard to this imbalance in Federal housing policy, H.R. 2
would blatantly ignore those Americans who truly need housing
assistance. H.R. 2 would mandate that housing authorities reserve a
paltry 35 percent of new public housing units for families earning 30
percent or less of the median income in a local area (i.e., the very
low-income). The remaining slots would be reserved for families earning
up to 80 percent of the area's median income. (Under current law, 85
percent of public housing units must be provided to families with
incomes at or below 50 percent of the area's median income.) In most
communities, 30 percent of the area's median income is roughly
equivalent to the poverty line. (In New York City, 30 percent of median
income equals $11,700 for a two-person household.) To reserve such a
small percentage of public housing for our poorest families, given the
dramatic evidence of unaddressed needs, is an unforgivable act by my
Republican colleagues.
To add insult to injury, H.R. 2 includes a ``fungibility'' clause
that would create a loophole that further weakens targeting provisions.
H.R. 2 would allow public housing authorities to satisfy their meager
35 percent targeting reserve for the very low-income by counting the
number of Section 8 vouchers granted to such families. (The Section 8
Program would be required to reserve only 40 percent of the slots for
the very low-income.) Thus, if a public housing authority gives 75
percent of Section 8 vouchers to the very poor, it would NOT be
required to make public housing units available to such families. In
effect, public housing would be offered to higher-income families,
while the very low-income would be offered housing vouchers. On the
surface it appears that public housing would then become more diversely
populated and the very low-income would be free to secure
housing outside of the traditional public authority ``warehouse.''
However, it is unreasonable to assume the private housing market could
reasonably accommodate the elderly, disabled and large low-income
families who have very special housing needs.
H.R. 2 would cleverly erode the protections of the Brooke Amendment.
Under current law, this amendment sets the maximum percentage that
tenants could be charged for rent at 30 percent of adjusted gross
income (AGI). However, H.R. 2 would introduce a deceitful practice
touted as giving the tenant a ``choice'' in rent calculations. H.R. 2
would allow the tenant to choose between two different calculations:
(1) the tenant could choose a rent calculation based on income, in
which case the rent could not exceed the 30 percent cap; or (2) the
tenant could choose a flat-rate determined by the housing authority
based on the rental value of the housing. This leads to
[[Page H2426]]
an obvious question: What assurances are there that the tenant will not
mistakenly choose the rate that will be more costly to him or her?
Moreover, H.R. 2 would require housing authorities to set monthly
minimum rents at $25 to $50, and authorities could grant hardship
exemptions from such minimum rent requirements. To individuals who make
more than $100,000 per year, a minimum rent of $25 to $50 may seem
reasonable. Such reasoning only illustrates how out of touch supporters
of this bill are with the people they represent. For the state of New
York, a $50 minimum rent would affect 900 households, and a $25 minimum
rent would affect 1,828 households. For homeless families utilizing
special rent assistance, but who have no income, this minimum rent
would be a hardship. For large families receiving AFDC in low benefit
states, this minimum rent would be a hardship. For families awaiting
determination of eligibility for public benefits, this minimum would be
a hardship. For individuals and families transitioning from
homelessness to housing, this minimum rent would be a hardship. Yes,
many of the people that we represent have little to no income at all.
The Congress should be compassionate enough to grant these families
some leeway. Support the Velazquez amendment that would only allow a
minimum rent up to $25 and would grant the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) the authority to define eligibility for the
exemption.
Finally, H.R. 2 would permit the shortsighted, misguided practice of
turning over state public housing funds to local governments in the
form of a block grant without regard to vital protections. The Home
Rule Flexibility Grant could be utilized by cities and towns to develop
and administer their own low-income housing programs. Again, the
perverse possibilities of such a fund are crystal clear. Local
governments, already grappling with fiscal viability, may choose to use
federal housing funds for other city needs. Local governments would be
free to establish their own rules and regulations regarding income
targeting provisions, 30 percent rent ceilings and other tenant
protections.
Undoubtedly, H.R. 2 is a bad bill. It is not a marked improvement
over last year's failed effort to reform the nation's public housing
policy. It contains minor provisions that do some overall good for the
community development and housing needs of our most vulnerable:
permitting HUD to take over chronically troubled housing authorities;
permitting the demolition of obsolete, dilapidated urban public
housing; and permitting ``elderly only'' or ``disabled only'' public
housing buildings. However, these are crumbs compared to the overall
famine in housing face by 5.3 million poor families who pay more than
50 percent of their income for rent and/or live in substandard housing.
This bill does little to provide ``a housing opportunity'' for our
vulnerable citizens and abdicates a great deal of federal
``responsibility.'' Vote ``no'' on the so-called ``Housing Opportunity
and Responsibility 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.
Stearns) having assumed the chair, Mr. Goodlatte, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill, (H.R. 2) to
repeal the United States Housing Act of 1937, deregulate the public
housing program and the program for rental housing assistance for low-
income families, and increase community control over such programs, and
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________