[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 14, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2619-H2647]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HOUSING OPPORTUNITY AND RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1997
The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Gibbons]. 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} 1332
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. Riggs
(Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on
Tuesday, May 13, 1997, the amendment by the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Davis] had been disposed of and title VII was open for amendment
at any point.
Are there further amendments to title VII?
Are there further amendments to the end of the bill?
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. KENNEDY of
Massachusetts
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Kennedy of Massachusetts:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Public
Housing Management Reform Act of 1997''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows--
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
TITLE I--PUBLIC HOUSING AND RENT REFORMS
Sec. 101. Establishment of capital and operating funds.
Sec. 102. Determination of rental amounts for residents.
Sec. 103. Minimum rents for public housing and section 8.
Sec. 104. Public housing ceiling rents.
Sec. 105. Disallowance of earned income from public housing and section
8 rent and family contribution determinations.
Sec. 106. Public housing homeownership.
Sec. 107. Public housing agency plan.
Sec. 108. PHMAP indicators for small PHA's.
Sec. 109. PHMAP self-sufficiency indicator.
Sec. 110. Expansion of powers for dealing with PHA's.
Sec. 111. Public housing site-based waiting lists.
Sec. 112. Community service requirements for public housing and section
8 programs.
Sec. 113. Comprehensive improvement assistance program streamlining.
Sec. 114. Flexibility for PHA funding.
Sec. 115. Replacement housing resources.
Sec. 116. Repeal of one-for-one replacement housing requirement.
Sec. 117. Demolition, site revitalization, replacement housing, and
tenant-based assistance grants for developments.
Sec. 118. Performance evaluation board.
Sec. 119. Economic development and supportive services for public
housing residents.
[[Page H2620]]
Sec. 120. Penalty for slow expenditure of modernization funds.
Sec. 121. Designation of PHA's as troubled.
Sec. 122. Volunteer services under the 1937 Act.
Sec. 123. Authorization of appropriations for operation safe home
program.
TITLE II--SECTION 8 STREAMLINING
Sec. 201. Permanent repeal of Federal preferences.
Sec. 202. Income targeting for public housing and section 8 programs.
Sec. 203. Merger of tenant-based assistance programs.
Sec. 204. Section 8 administrative fees.
Sec. 205. Section 8 homeownership.
Sec. 206. Welfare to work certificates.
Sec. 207. Effect of failure to comply with public assistance
requirements.
Sec. 208. Streamlining section 8 tenant-based assistance.
Sec. 209. Nondiscrimination against certificate and voucher holders.
Sec. 210. Recapture and reuse of ACC project reserves under tenant-
based assistance program.
Sec. 211. Expanding the coverage of the Public and Assisted Housing
Drug Elimination Act of 1990.
Sec. 212. Study regarding rental assistance.
TITLE III--``ONE-STRIKE AND YOU'RE OUT'' OCCUPANCY PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Screening of applicants.
Sec. 302. Termination of tenancy and assistance.
Sec. 303. Lease requirements.
Sec. 304. Availability of criminal records for public housing tenant
screening and eviction.
Sec. 305. Definitions.
Sec. 306. Conforming amendments.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) we have a shared national interest in creating safe,
decent and affordable housing because, for all Americans,
housing is an essential building block toward holding a job,
getting an education, participating in the community, and
helping fulfill our national goals;
(2) the American people recognized this shared national
interest in 1937, when we created a public housing program
dedicated to meeting these needs while creating more hope and
opportunity for the American people;
(3) for 60 years America's public housing system has
provided safe, decent, and affordable housing for millions of
low-income families, who have used public housing as a
stepping stone toward greater stability, independence, and
homeownership;
(4) today, more than 3,300 local public housing agencies--
95 percent of all housing agencies throughout America--are
providing a good place for families to live and fulfilling
their historic mission;
(5) yet, for all our progress as a nation, today, only one
out of four Americans who needs housing assistance receives
it;
(6) at the same time, approximately 15 percent of the
people who live in public housing nationwide live in housing
with management designated as ``troubled'';
(7) for numerous developments at these troubled public
housing agencies and elsewhere, families face a overwhelming
mix of crime, drug trafficking, unemployment, and despair,
where there is little hope for a better future or a better
life;
(8) the past 60 years have resulted in a system where
outdated rules and excessive government regulation are
limiting our ability to propose innovative solutions and
solve problems, not only at the relatively few local public
housing agencies designated as troubled, but at the 3,300
that are working well;
(9) obstacles faced by those agencies that are working
well--multiple reports and cumbersome regulations--make a
compelling case for deregulation and for concentration by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development on fulfillment of
the program's basic mission;
(10) all told, the Department has drifted from its original
mission, creating bureaucratic processes that encumber the
people and organizations it is supposed to serve;
(11) under a framework enacted by Congress, the Department
has begun major reforms to address these problems, with
dramatic results;
(12) public housing agencies have begun to demolish and
replace the worst public housing, reduce crime, promote
resident self-sufficiency, upgrade management, and end the
isolation of public housing developments from the working
world;
(13) the Department has also recognized that for public
housing to work better, the Department needs to work better,
and has begun a major overhaul of its organization,
streamlining operations, improving management, building
stronger partnerships with state and local agencies and
improving its ability to take enforcement actions where
necessary to assure that its programs serve their intended
purposes; and
(14) for these dramatic reforms to succeed, permanent
legislation is now needed to continue the transformation of
public housing agencies, strip away outdated rules, provide
necessary enforcement tools, and empower the Department and
local agencies to meet the needs of America's families.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act--
(1) to completely overhaul the framework and rules that
were put in place to govern public housing 60 years ago;
(2) to revolutionize the way public housing serves its
clients, fits in the community, builds opportunity, and
prepares families for a better life;
(3) to reaffirm America's historic commitment to safe,
decent, and affordable housing and to remove the obstacles to
meeting that goal;
(4) to continue the complete and total overhaul of
management of the Department;
(5) to dramatically deregulate and reorganize the Federal
Government's management and oversight of America's public
housing;
(6) to ensure that local public housing agencies spend more
time delivering vital services to residents and less time
complying with unessential regulations or filing unessential
reports;
(7) to achieve greater accountability of taxpayer funds by
empowering the Federal Government to take firmer, quicker,
and more effective actions to improve the management of
troubled local housing authorities and to crack down on poor
performance;
(8) to preserve public housing as a rental resource for
low-income Americans, while breaking down the extreme social
isolation of public housing from mainstream America;
(9) to provide for revitalization of severely distressed
public housing, or its replacement with replacement housing
or tenant-based assistance;
(10) to integrate public housing reform with welfare reform
so that welfare recipients--many of whom are public housing
residents--can better chart a path to independence and self-
sufficiency;
(11) to anchor in a permanent statute needed changes that
will result in the continued transformation of the public
housing and tenant-based assistance programs--including
deregulating well-performing housing agencies, ensuring
accountability to the public, providing sanctions for poor
performers, and providing additional management tools;
(12) to streamline and simplify the tenant-based Section 8
program and to make this program workable for providing
homeownership; and
(13) through these comprehensive measures, to reform the
United States Housing Act of 1937 and the programs
thereunder.
TITLE I--PUBLIC HOUSING AND RENT REFORMS
SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF CAPITAL AND OPERATING FUNDS.
(a) Capital Fund.--Section 14(a) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (5) as
subparagraphs (A) through (E), respectively;
(2) by inserting the paragraph designation ``(2)'' before
``It is the purpose''; and
(3) by inserting the following new paragraph (1)
immediately after the subsection designation ``(a)'':
``(1) The Secretary shall establish a Capital Fund under
this section for the purpose of making assistance available
to public housing agencies in accordance with this
section.''.
(b) Operating Fund.--Section 9(a) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 is amended by striking ``Sec. 9.
(a)(1)(A) In addition to'' and inserting the following:
``Sec. 9. (a) The Secretary shall establish an Operating
Fund under this section for the purpose of making assistance
available to public housing agencies in accordance with this
section.
``(1)(A) In addition to''.
SEC. 102. DETERMINATION OF RENTAL AMOUNTS FOR RESIDENTS OF
PUBLIC HOUSING.
(a) In General.--Section 3 of the United States Housing Act
of 1937 is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by revising subparagraph (A) to
read as follows:
``(A)(i) if the family is assisted under section 8 of this
Act, 30 percent of the family's monthly adjusted income; or
``(ii) if the family resides in public housing, an amount
established by the public housing agency not to exceed 30
percent of the family's monthly adjusted income;''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(5)--
(A) after the semicolon following subparagraph (F), by
inserting ``and'';
(B) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a period; and
(C) by striking subparagraph (H).
(b) Revised Operating Subsidy Formula.--The Secretary, in
consultation with interested parties, shall establish a
revised formula for allocating operating assistance under
section 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, which
formula may include such factors as:
(1) standards for the costs of operation and reasonable
projections of income, taking into account the character and
location of the public housing project and characteristics of
the families served, or the costs of providing comparable
services as determined with criteria or a formula
representing the operations of a prototype well-managed
public housing project;
(2) the number of public housing dwelling units owned and
operated by the public housing agency, the percentage of
those units that are occupied by very low-income families,
and, if applicable, the reduction in the number of public
housing units as a result of any conversion to a system of
tenant-based assistance;
(3) the degree of household poverty served by a public
housing agency;
(4) the extent to which the public housing agency provides
programs and activities designed to promote the economic
self-sufficiency and management skills of public housing
tenants;
[[Page H2621]]
(5) the number of dwelling units owned and operated by the
public housing agency that are chronically vacant and the
amount of assistance appropriate for those units;
(6) the costs of the public housing agency associated with
anti-crime and anti-drug activities, including the costs of
providing adequate security for public housing tenants;
(7) the ability of the public housing agency to effectively
administer the Operating Fund distribution of the public
housing agency;
(8) incentives to public housing agencies for good
management;
(9) standards for the costs of operation of assisted
housing compared to unassisted housing; and
(10) an incentive to encourage public housing agencies to
increase nonrental income and to increase rental income
attributable to their units by encouraging occupancy by
families whose incomes have increase while in occupancy and
newly admitted families; such incentive shall provide that
the agency shall derive the full benefit of any increase in
nonrental or rental income, and such increase shall not
result in a decrease in amounts provided to the agency under
this title; in addition, an agency shall be permitted to
retain, from each fiscal year, the full benefit of such an
increase in nonrental or rental income, except to the extent
that such benefit exceeds (A) 100 percent of the total amount
of the operating amounts for which the agency is eligible
under this section, and (B) the maximum balance permitted for
the agency's operating reserve under this section and any
regulations issued under this section.
(c) Transition Provision.--Prior to the establishment and
implementation of an operating subsidy formula under
subsection (b), if a public housing agency establishes a
rental amount that is less than 30 percent of the family's
monthly adjusted income pursuant to section 3(a)(1)(A)(ii) of
the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended by
subsection (a)(1), the Secretary shall not take into account
any reduction of or increase in the public housing agency's
per unit dwelling rental income resulting from the use of
such rental amount when calculating the contributions under
section 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 for the
public housing agency for the operation of the public
housing.
SEC. 103. MINIMUM RENTS FOR PUBLIC HOUSING AND SECTION 8
PROGRAMS.
The second sentence of section 3(a)(1) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 is amended--
(1) at the end of subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'';
(2) in subsection (C), by striking the period and inserting
``; or''; and
(3) by inserting the following at the end:
``(D) $25.
Where establishing the rent or family contribution based on
subparagraph (D) would otherwise result in undue hardship (as
defined by the Secretary or the public housing agency) for
one or more categories of affected families described in the
next sentence, the Secretary or the public housing agency may
exempt one or more such categories from the requirements of
this paragraph and may require a lower minimum monthly rental
contribution for one or more such categories. The categories
of families described in this sentence shall include families
subject to situations in which (i) the family has lost
eligibility for or is awaiting an eligibility determination
for a Federal, State, or local assistance program; (ii) the
family would be evicted as a result of the imposition of the
minimum rent requirement under subsection (c); (iii) the
income of the family has decreased because of changed
circumstance, including loss of employment; and (iv) a death
in the family has occurred; and other families subject to
such situations as may be determined by the Secretary or the
agency. Where the rent or contribution of a family would
otherwise be based on subparagraph (D) and a member of the
family is an immigrant lawfully admitted for permanent
residence (as those terms are defined in sections 101(a)(15)
and 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(15) and 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20)) who would have
been entitled to public benefits but for title IV of the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996, notwithstanding any other provision of this
section, a public housing agency shall exempt the family from
the requirements of this paragraph.''.
SEC. 104. PUBLIC HOUSING CEILING RENTS.
(a) Section 3(a)(2)(A) of the United States Housing Act of
1937, as amended by section 402(b)(1) of The Balanced Budget
Downpayment Act, I, is amended to read as follows:
``(A) adopt ceiling rents that reflect the reasonable
market value of the housing, but that are not less than--
``(i) for housing other than housing predominantly for
elderly or disabled families (or both), 75 percent of the
monthly cost to operate the housing of the agency;
``(ii) for housing predominantly for elderly or disabled
families (or both), 100 percent of the monthly cost to
operate the housing of the agency; and
``(iii) the monthly cost to make a deposit to a replacement
reserve (in the sole discretion of the public housing
agency); and''.
(b) Notwithstanding section 402(f) of The Balanced Budget
Downpayment Act, I, the amendments made by section 402(b) of
that Act shall remain in effect after fiscal year 1997.
SEC. 105. DISALLOWANCE OF EARNED INCOME FROM PUBLIC HOUSING
AND SECTION 8 RENT AND FAMILY CONTRIBUTION
DETERMINATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 3 of the United States Housing Act
of 1937 is amended--
(1) by striking the undesignated paragraph at the end of
subsection (c)(3) (as added by section 515(b) of Public Law
101-625); and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Disallowance of Earned Income From Public Housing and
Section 8 Rent and Family Contribution Determinations.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the rent payable under subsection (a) by, the family
contribution determined in accordance with subsection (a)
for, a family--
``(A) that--
``(i) occupies a unit in a public housing project; or
``(ii) receives assistance under section 8; and
``(B) whose income increases as a result of employment of a
member of the family who was previously unemployed for one or
more years (including a family whose income increases as a
result of the participation of a family member in any family
self-sufficiency or other job training program);may not be
increased as a result of the increased income due to such
employment during the 18-month period beginning on the date
on which the employment is commenced.
``(2) Phase-in of rate increases.--After the expiration of
the 18-month period referred to in paragraph (1), rent
increases due to the continued employment of the family
member described in paragraph (1)(b) shall be phased in over
a subsequent 3-year period.
``(3) Overall limitation.--Rent payable under subsection
(a) shall not exceed the amount determined under subsection
(a).''.
(b) Applicability of Amendment.--
(1) Public housing.--Notwithstanding the amendment made by
subsection (a), any tenant of public housing participating in
the program under the authority contained in the undesignated
paragraph at the end of the section 3(c)(3) of the United
States Housing Act of 1937, as that paragraph existed on the
day before the date of enactment this Act, shall be governed
by that authority after that date.
(2) Section 8.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall
apply to tenant-based assistance provided by a public housing
agency under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of
1937 on and after October 1, 1998, but shall apply only to
the extent approved in appropriation Acts.
SEC. 106. PUBLIC HOUSING HOMEOWNERSHIP.
Section 5(h) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 is
amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``lower income
tenants,'' and inserting the following: ``low-income tenants,
or to any organization serving as a conduit for sales to such
tenants,''; and
(2) by adding the following two sentences at the end: ``In
the case of purchase by an entity that is an organization
serving as a conduit for sales to such tenants, the entity
shall sell the units to low-income families within five years
from the date of its acquisition of the units. The entity
shall use any net proceeds from the resale and from managing
the units, as determined in accordance with guidelines of the
Secretary, for housing purposes, such as funding resident
organizations and reserves for capital replacements.''.
SEC. 107. PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY PLAN.
The United States Housing Act of 1937 is amended by
inserting after section 5 the following new section:
``SEC. 5A. PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY PLAN.
``(a) Contents of Plan.--(1) Each public housing agency
shall submit to the Secretary a public housing agency plan
that shall consist of the following parts, as applicable--
``(A) A statement of the housing needs of low-income and
very low-income families residing in the community served by
the public housing agency, and of other low-income families
on the waiting list of the agency (including the housing
needs of elderly families and disabled families), and the
means by which the agency intends, to the maximum extent
practicable, to address such needs.
``(B) The procedures for outreach efforts (including
efforts that are planned and that have been executed) to
homeless families and to entities providing assistance to
homeless families, in the jurisdiction of the public housing
agency.
``(C) For assistance under section 14, a 5-year
comprehensive plan, as described in section 14(e)(1).
``(D) For assistance under section 14, the annual
statement, as required under section 14(e)(3).
``(E) An annual description of the public housing agency's
plans for the following activities--
``(i) demolition and disposition under section 18;
``(ii) homeownership under section 5(h); and
``(iii) designated housing under section 7.
``(F) An annual submission by the public housing agency
consisting of the following information--
``(i) tenant selection admission and assignment policies,
including any admission preferences;
``(ii) rent policies, including income and rent calculation
methodology, minimum rents, ceiling rents, and income
exclusions, disregards, or deductions;
[[Page H2622]]
``(iii) any cooperation agreements between the public
housing agency and State welfare and employment agencies to
target services to public housing residents (public housing
agencies shall use best efforts to enter into such
agreements); and
``(iv) anti-crime and security plans, including--
``(I) a strategic plan for addressing crime on or affecting
the sites owned by the agency, which shall provide, on a
development-by-development basis, for measures to ensure the
safety of public housing residents, shall be established,
with respect to each development, in consultation with the
police officer or officers in command for the precinct in
which the development is located, shall describe the need for
measures to ensure the safety of public housing residents and
for crime prevention measures, describe any such activities
conducted, or to be conducted, by the agency, and provide for
coordination between the public housing agency and the
appropriate police precincts for carrying out such measures
and activities;
``(II) a statement of activities in furtherance of the
strategic plan to be carried out with assistance under the
Public and Assisted Housing Drug Elimination Act of 1990;
``(III) performance criteria regrading the effective use of
such assistance; and
``(IV) any plans for the provision of anti-crime assistance
to be provided by the local government in addition to the
assistance otherwise required to be provided by the agreement
for local cooperation under section 5(e)(2) or other
applicable law.
Where a public housing agency has no changes to report in any
of the information required under this subparagraph since the
previous annual submission, the public agency shall only
state in its annual submission that it has made no changes.
If the Secretary determines, at any time, that the security
needs of a development are not being adequately addressed by
the strategic crime plan for the agency under clause (iv)(I),
or that the local police precinct is not complying with the
plan, the Secretary may mediate between the public housing
agency and the local precinct to resolve any issues of
conflict. If after such mediation has occurred and the
Secretary determines that the security needs of the
development are not adequately addressed, the Secretary may
require the public housing agency to submit an amended plan.
``(G) Other appropriate information that the Secretary
requires for each public housing agency that is--
``(i) at risk of being designated as troubled under section
6(j); or
``(ii) designated as troubled under section 6(j).
``(H) Other information required by the Secretary in
connection with the provision of assistance under section 9.
``(I) An annual certification by the public housing agency
that it has met the citizen participation requirements under
subsection (b).
``(J) An annual certification by the public housing agency
that it will carry out the public housing agency plan in
conformity with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the
Fair Housing Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, and title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990, and will affirmatively further fair housing.
``(K) An annual certification by the public housing agency
that the public housing agency plan is consistent with the
approved Consolidated Plan for the locality.
``(2) The Secretary may provide for more frequent
submissions where the public housing agency proposes to amend
any parts of the public housing agency plan.
``(b) Citizen Participation Requirements.--In developing
the public housing agency plan under subsection (a), each
public housing agency shall consult with appropriate local
government officials and with tenants of the housing
projects, which shall include at least one public hearing
that shall be held prior to the adoption of the plan, and
afford tenants and interested parties an opportunity to
summarize their priorities and concerns, to ensure their due
consideration in the planning process of the public housing
agency.
``(c) Performance Reports.--The Secretary shall require the
public housing agency to submit any information that the
Secretary determines is appropriate or necessary to assess
the management performance of public housing agencies and
resident management corporations under section 6(j) and to
monitor assistance provided under this Act. To the maximum
extent feasible, the Secretary shall require such information
in one report, as part of the annual submission of the agency
under subsection (a).
``(d) Standards for Determination of Noncompliance.--After
submission by a public housing agency of a public housing
agency plan under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
determine whether the plan complies with the requirements
under this section. The Secretary may determine that a plan
does not comply with the requirements under this section only
if--
``(1) the plan is incomplete in significant matters
required under this section;
``(2) there is evidence available to the Secretary that
challenges, in a substantial manner, any information provided
in the plan;
``(3) the Secretary determines that the plan does not
comply with Federal law or violates the purposes of this Act
because it fails to provide housing that will be viable on a
long-term basis at a reasonable cost;
``(4) the plan plainly fails to adequately identify the
needs of low-income families for housing assistance in the
jurisdiction of the agency;
``(5) the plan plainly fails to adequately identify the
capital improvement needs for public housing developments in
the jurisdiction of the agency;
``(6) the activities identified in the plan are plainly
inappropriate to address the needs identified in the plan; or
``(7) the plan is inconsistent with the requirements of
this Act.
``(e) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary may waive, or
specify alternative requirements for, any requirements under
this section that the Secretary determines are burdensome or
unnecessary for public housing agencies that only administer
tenant-based assistance and do not own or operate public
housing.''.
SEC. 108. PHMAP INDICATORS FOR SMALL PHA'S.
Section 6(j)(1) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 is
amended by--
(1) redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (I) as clauses
(i) through (ix);
(2) redesignating clauses (1), (2), and (3) in clause (ix),
as redesignated by paragraph (1), as subclauses (I), (II),
and (III) respectively;
(3) in the fourth sentence, inserting immediately before
clause (i), as redesignated, the following new subparagraph:
``(A) For public housing agencies that own or operate 250
or more public housing dwelling units--''; and
(4) adding the following new subparagraph at the end:
``(B) For public housing agencies that own and operate
fewer than 250 public housing dwelling units--
``(i) The number and percentage of vacancies within an
agency's inventory, including the progress that an agency has
made within the previous 3 years to reduce such vacancies.
``(ii) The percentage of rents uncollected.
``(iii) The ability of the agency to produce and use
accurate and timely records of monthly income and expenses
and to maintain at least a 3-month reserve.
``(iv) The annual inspection of occupied units and the
agency's ability to respond to maintenance work orders.
``(v) Any one additional factor that the Secretary may
determine to be appropriate.''.
SEC. 109. PHMAP SELF-SUFFICIENCY INDICATOR.
Section 6(j)(1)(A) of the United States Housing Act of
1937, as amended by section 108 of this Act, is amended at
the end by adding the following new clause:
``(x) The extent to which the agency coordinates and
promotes participation by families in programs that assist
them to achieve self-sufficiency.''.
SEC. 110. EXPANSION OF POWERS FOR DEALING WITH PHA'S IN
SUBSTANTIAL DEFAULT.
(a) In General.--Section 6(j)(3) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by amending clause (i) to read as follows:
``(i) 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; if appropriate,
these proposals shall 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 programs of the agency;'';
(B) by redesignating clause (iv) as clause (v) and amending
it to read as follows:
``(v) require the agency to make other arrangements
acceptable to the Secretary and in the best interests of the
public housing residents and families assisted under section
8 for managing all, or part, of the public housing
administered by the agency or of the programs of the
agency.''; and
(C) by inserting a new clause (iv) after clause (iii) to
read as follows:
``(iv) take possession of all or part of the public housing
agency, including all or part of any project or program of
the agency, including any project or program under any other
provision of this title; and''; and
(2) by striking subparagraphs (B) through (D) and inserting
in lieu thereof the following:
``(B)(i) If a public housing agency is identified as
troubled under this subsection, the Secretary shall notify
the agency of the troubled status of the agency.
``(ii) Upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning
on the later of the date on which the agency receives notice
from the Secretary of the troubled status of the agency under
clause (i) and the date of enactment of the Public Housing
Management Reform Act of 1997, the Secretary shall--
``(I) in the case of a troubled public housing agency with
1,250 or more units, petition for the appointment of a
receiver pursuant to subparagraph (A)(ii); or
``(II) in the case of a troubled public housing agency with
fewer than 1,250 units, either--
``(aa) petition for the appointment of a receiver pursuant
to subparagraph (A)(ii); or
``(bb) appoint, on a competitive or noncompetitive basis,
an individual or entity as an administrative receiver to
assume the responsibilities of the Secretary for the
administration of all or part of the public housing agency
(including all or part of any project
[[Page H2623]]
or program of the agency), provided the Secretary has taken
possession of all or part of the public housing agency
(including all or part of any project or program of the
agency) pursuant to subparagraph (A)(iv).
``(C) If a receiver is appointed pursuant to subparagraph
(A)(ii), in addition to the powers accorded by the court
appointing the receiver, the receiver--
``(i) may abrogate any contract to which the United States
or an agency of the United States is not a party that, in the
receiver's written determination (which shall include the
basis for such determination), substantially impedes
correction of the substantial default, but only after the
receiver determines that reasonable efforts to renegotiate
such contract have failed;
``(ii) may demolish and dispose of all or part of the
assets of the public housing agency (including all or part of
any project of the agency) in accordance with section 18,
including disposition by transfer of properties to resident-
supported nonprofit entities;
``(iii) if determined to be appropriate by the Secretary,
may seek the establishment, as permitted by applicable State
and local law, of one or more new public housing agencies;
``(iv) if determined to be appropriate by the Secretary,
may seek consolidation of all or part of the agency
(including all or part of any project or program of the
agency), as permitted by applicable State and local laws,
into other well-managed public housing agencies with the
consent of such well-managed agencies; and
``(v) shall not be required to comply with any State or
local law relating to civil service requirements, employee
rights (except civil rights), procurement, or financial or
administrative controls that, in the receiver's written
determination (which shall include the basis for such
determination), substantially impedes correction of the
substantial default.
``(D)(i) If the Secretary takes possession of all or part
of the public housing agency, including all or part of any
project or program of the agency, pursuant to subparagraph
(A)(iv), the Secretary--
``(I) may abrogate any contract to which the United States
or an agency of the United States is not a party that, in the
written determination of the Secretary (which shall include
the basis for such determination), substantially impedes
correction of the substantial default, but only after the
Secretary determines that reasonable efforts to renegotiate
such contract have failed;
``(II) may demolish and dispose of all or part of the
assets of the public housing agency (including all or part of
any project of the agency) in accordance with section 18,
including disposition by transfer of properties to resident-
supported nonprofit entities;
``(III) may seek the establishment, as permitted by
applicable State and local law, of one or more new public
housing agencies;
``(IV) may seek consolidation of all or part of the agency
(including all or part of any project or program of the
agency), as permitted by applicable State and local laws,
into other well-managed public housing agencies with the
consent of such well-managed agencies;
``(V) shall not be required to comply with any State or
local law relating to civil service requirements, employee
rights (except civil rights), procurement, or financial or
administrative controls that, in the Secretary's written
determination (which shall include the basis for such
determination), substantially impedes correction of the
substantial default; and
``(VI) shall, without any action by a district court of the
United States, have such additional authority as a district
court of the United States would have the authority to confer
upon a receiver to achieve the purposes of the receivership.
``(ii) If the Secretary, pursuant to subparagraph
(B)(ii)(II)(bb), appoints an administrative receiver to
assume the responsibilities of the Secretary for the
administration of all or part of the public housing agency
(including all or part of any project or program of the
agency), the Secretary may delegate to the administrative
receiver any or all of the powers given the Secretary by this
subparagraph, as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
``(iii) Regardless of any delegation under this
subparagraph, an administrative receiver may not seek the
establishment of one or more new public housing agencies
pursuant to clause (i)(III) or the consolidation of all or
part of an agency into other well-managed agencies pursuant
to clause (i)(IV), unless the Secretary first approves an
application by the administrative receiver to authorize such
action.
``(E) The Secretary may make available to receivers and
other entities selected or appointed pursuant to this
paragraph such assistance as the Secretary determines in the
discretion of the Secretary is necessary and available 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 families assisted under section
8. A decision made by the Secretary under this paragraph is
not subject to review in any court of the United States, or
in any court of any State, territory, or possession of the
United States.
``(F) In any proceeding under subparagraph (A)(ii), 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
all or part 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, or any other person or appropriate
entity. The court shall have power to grant appropriate
temporary or preliminary relief pending final disposition of
the petition by the Secretary.
``(G) The appointment of a receiver pursuant to this
paragraph may be terminated, upon the petition of any party,
when the court determines that all defaults have been cured
or the public housing agency is capable again of discharging
its duties.
``(H) If the Secretary (or an administrative receiver
appointed by the Secretary) takes possession of a public
housing agency (including all or part of any project or
program of the agency), or if a receiver is appointed by a
court, the Secretary or receiver shall be deemed to be acting
not in the official capacity of that person or entity, but
rather in the capacity of the public housing agency, and any
liability incurred, regardless of whether the incident giving
rise to that liability occurred while the Secretary or
receiver was in possession of all or part of the public
housing agency (including all or part of any project or
program of the agency), shall be the liability of the public
housing agency.''.
(b) Effectiveness.--The provisions of, and duties and
authorities conferred or confirmed by, subsection (a) 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 date of
enactment of this Act.
(c) Technical Correction Regarding Applicability to Section
8.--Section 8(h) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 is
amended by inserting after ``6'' the following: ``(except as
provided in section 6(j)(3))''.
SEC. 111. PUBLIC HOUSING SITE-BASED WAITING LISTS.
Section 6 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as
amended by section 306(a)(2) of this Act, is amended by
inserting the following new subsection at the end:
``(q) A public housing agency may establish, in accordance
with guidelines established by the Secretary, procedures for
maintaining waiting lists for admissions to public housing
developments of the agency, which may include a system
whereby applicants may apply directly at or otherwise
designate the development or developments in which they seek
to reside. All such procedures must comply with all
provisions of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the
Fair Housing Act, and other applicable civil rights laws.''.
SEC. 112. COMMUNITY SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC HOUSING
AND SECTION 8 PROGRAMS.
Section 12 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Community Service Requirements For Public Housing and
Section 8 Programs.--
``(1) In general.--A public housing agency shall encourage
each adult member of each family residing in public housing
or assisted under section 8 to participate, for not less than
8 hours per month, in community service activities (not to
include any political activity) within the community in which
that adult resides.
``(2) Exemptions.--The requirement in paragraph (1) shall
not apply to any adult who is--
``(A) at least 62 years of age;
``(B) a person with disabilities who is unable, as
determined in accordance with guidelines established by the
Secretary, to comply with this subsection;
``(C) working at least 20 hours per week, a student,
receiving vocational training, or otherwise meeting work,
training, or educational requirements of a public assistance
program other than the program specified in subparagraph (E);
``(D) a single parent, grandparent, or the spouse of an
otherwise exempt individual, who is the primary caretaker of
one or more--
``(i) children who are 6 years of age or younger;
``(ii) persons who are at least 62 years of age; or
``(iii) persons with disabilities; or
``(E) in a family receiving assistance under the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families program under part A of title
IV of the Social Security Act.''.
SEC. 113. COMPREHENSIVE IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
STREAMLINING.
(a) Section 14(d) of the United States Housing Act of 1937
is amended to read as follows:
``(d) No assistance may be made available under subsection
(b) to a public housing agency that owns or operates fewer
than 250 public housing units unless the agency has submitted
a comprehensive plan in accordance with subsection (e)(1) and
the Secretary has approved it in accordance with subsection
(e)(2). The assistance shall be allocated to individual
agencies on the basis of a formula established by the
Secretary.''.
(b) Section 14 (f)(1) is repealed.
(c) Section 14 (g) is amended by striking ``(d)(3)'' and
inserting ``(d)''.
(d) Section 14(h) is repealed.
(e) Section 14(i) is repealed.
(f) Section 14(k)(1) is amended by striking ``$75,000,000''
and inserting ``$100,000,000''.
[[Page H2624]]
SEC. 114. FLEXIBILITY FOR PHA FUNDING.
(a) Expansion of Uses of Funding.--Section 14(q)(1) of the
United States Housing Act of 1937 is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by inserting after ``section
5,'' the following ``by section 24,'';
(2) in the first sentence, by inserting after ``public
housing agency,'', the following: ``except for the provision
of tenant-based assistance,''; and
(3) by inserting at the end the following:
``Notwithstanding the foregoing, (i) a public housing agency
that owns or operates fewer than 250 units may use
modernization assistance provided under section 14,
development assistance provided under section 5(a), and
operating subsidy provided under section 9, for any eligible
activity authorized by this Act or by applicable
appropriations Acts for a public housing agency, except for
assistance under section 8, and (ii) any agency determined to
be a troubled agency under section 6(j) may use amounts not
appropriated under section 9 for any operating subsidy
purpose authorized in section 9 only with the approval of the
Secretary and provided that the housing is maintained and
operated in a safe and sanitary condition.''.
(b) Mixed-Finance Development.--Section 14(q)(2) of such
Act is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Mixed finance public housing.--
``(A) Authority.--The Secretary may, upon such terms and
conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, authorize a public
housing agency to provide for the use of capital and
operating assistance provided under section 5, 14, or 9,
assistance for demolition, site revitalization, or
replacement housing provided under section 24, or assistance
under applicable appropriation Acts for a public housing
agency, to produce mixed-finance housing developments, or
replace or revitalize existing public housing dwelling units
with mixed-finance housing developments, but only if the
agency submits to the Secretary a plan for such housing that
is approved pursuant to subparagraph (C) by the Secretary.
``(B) Mixed-finance housing developments.--
``(i) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `mixed-
finance housing' means low-income housing or mixed-income
housing for which the financing for development or
revitalization is provided, in part, from entities other than
the public housing agency.
``(ii) A mixed-finance housing development shall be
produced or revitalized, and owned--
``(I) by a public housing agency or by an entity affiliated
with a public housing agency;
``(II) by a partnership, a limited liability company, or
other entity in which the public housing agency (or an entity
affiliated with a public housing agency) is a general
partner, is a managing member, or otherwise participates in
the activities of the entity;
``(III) by any entity that grants to the public housing
agency the option to purchase the public housing project
during the 20-year period beginning on the date of initial
occupancy of the public housing project in accordance with
section 42(l)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
``(IV) in accordance with such other terms and conditions
as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation.
This clause may not be construed to require development or
revitalization, and ownership, by the same entity.
``(C) Mixed-finance housing plan.--The Secretary may
approve a plan for development or revitalization of mixed-
finance housing under this paragraph only if the Secretary
determines that--
``(i) the public housing agency has the ability, or has
provided for an entity under subparagraph (B)(ii) that has
the ability, to use the amounts provided for use under the
plan for such housing, effectively, either directly or
through contract management;
``(ii) the plan provides permanent financing commitments
from a sufficient number of sources other than the public
housing agency, which may include banks and other
conventional lenders, States, units of general local
government, State housing finance agencies, secondary market
entities, and other financial institutions;
``(iii) the plan provides for use of amounts provided under
subparagraph (A) by the public housing agency for financing
the mixed-income housing in the form of grants, loans,
advances, or other debt or equity investments, including
collateral or credit enhancement of bonds issued by the
agency or any State or local governmental agency for
development or revitalization of the development; and
``(iv) the plan complies with any other criteria that the
Secretary may establish.
``(D) Rent levels for housing financed with low-income
housing tax credit.--With respect to any dwelling unit in a
mixed-finance housing development that is a low-income
dwelling unit for which amounts from the Operating or Capital
Fund are used and that is assisted pursuant to the low-income
housing tax credit under section 42 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, the rents charged to the residents of the unit
shall be determined in accordance with this title, but shall
not in any case exceed the amounts allowable under such
section 42.
``(E) Carry-over of assistance for replaced housing.--In
the case of a mixed-finance housing development that is
replacement housing for public housing demolished or disposed
of, or is the result of the revitalization of existing public
housing, the share of capital and operating assistance
received by the public housing agency that owned or operated
the housing demolished, disposed of, or revitalized shall not
be reduced because of such demolition, disposition, or
revitalization after the commencement of such demolition,
disposition, or revitalization, unless--
``(i) upon the expiration of the 18-month period beginning
upon the approval of the plan under subparagraph (C) for the
mixed-finance housing development, the agency does not have
binding commitments for development or revitalization, or a
construction contract, for such development;
``(ii) upon the expiration of the 4-year period beginning
upon the approval of the plan, the mixed-finance housing
development is not substantially ready for occupancy and is
placed under the annual contributions contract for the
agency; or
``(iii) the number of dwelling units in the mixed-finance
housing development that are made available for occupancy
only by low-income families is substantially less than the
number of such dwelling units in the public housing
demolished, disposed of, or revitalized.
The Secretary may extend the period under clause (i) or (ii)
for a public housing agency if the Secretary determines that
circumstances beyond the control of the agency caused the
agency to fail to meet the deadline under such clause.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 14(q) of such Act is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``mixed income'' and
inserting ``mixed-finance''; and
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``mixed-income project''
and inserting ``mixed-finance development''.
(d) Applicability.--Section 14(q) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937, as amended by this section, shall be
effective with respect to any assistance provided to the
public housing agency under sections 5 and 14 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 and applicable appropriations Acts
for a public housing agency.
SEC. 115. REPLACEMENT HOUSING RESOURCES.
(a) Operating Fund.--Section 9(a)(3)(B) of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 is amended--
(1) at the end of clause (iv), by striking ``and'';
(2) at the end of clause (v), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by inserting at the end the following:
``(vi) where an existing unit under a contract is
demolished or disposed of, the Secretary shall adjust the
amount the public housing agency receives under this section;
notwithstanding this requirement, the Secretary shall provide
assistance under this section in accordance with the
provisions of section 14(q)(2) (relating to mixed-finance
public housing).''.
(b) Comprehensive Grant Program.--Section 14(k)(2)(D)(ii)
of such Act is amended to read as follows:
``(ii) Where an existing unit under a contract is
demolished or disposed of, the Secretary shall adjust the
amount the agency receives under the formula. Notwithstanding
the preceding sentence, for the five-year period after
demolition or disposition, the Secretary may provide for no
adjustment, or a partial adjustment, of the amount the agency
receives under the formula and shall require the agency to
use any additional amount received as a result of this
sentence for replacement housing or physical improvements
necessary to preserve viable public housing.''.
SEC. 116. REPEAL OF ONE-FOR-ONE REPLACEMENT HOUSING
REQUIREMENT.
Section 1002(d) of Public Law 104-19 is amended by striking
``and on or before September 30, 1997''.
SEC. 117. DEMOLITION, SITE REVITALIZATION, REPLACEMENT
HOUSING, AND TENANT-BASED ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR
DEVELOPMENTS.
Section 24 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 is
amended--
(1) by amending the heading to read as follows:
``DEMOLITION, SITE REVITALIZATION, REPLACEMENT HOUSING, AND
TENANT-BASED ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR DEVELOPMENTS'';
(2) by amending subsections (a) through (c) to read as
follows:
``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide
assistance to public housing agencies for the purposes of--
``(1) reducing the density and improving the living
environment for public housing residents of severely
distressed public housing through the demolition of obsolete
public housing developments (or portions thereof);
``(2) revitalizing sites (including remaining public
housing dwelling units) on which such public housing
developments are located and contributing to the improvement
of the surrounding neighborhood;
``(3) providing housing that will avoid or decrease the
concentration of very low-income families; and
``(4) providing tenant-based assistance in accordance with
the provisions of section 8 for the purpose of providing
replacement housing and assisting residents to be displaced
by the demolition.
``(b) Grant Authority.--The Secretary may make grants
available to public housing agencies as provided in this
section.
``(c) Contribution Requirement.--The Secretary may not make
any grant under this section to any applicant unless the
applicant supplements the amount of assistance provided under
this section (other than amount
[[Page H2625]]
provided for demolition or tenant-based assistance) with an
amount of funds from sources other than this Act equal to not
less than 5 percent of the amount provided under this
section, including amounts from other Federal sources, any
State or local government sources, any private contributions,
and the value of any in-kind services or administrative costs
provided.'';
(3) by amending subsection (d)(1) to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may make grants under this
subsection to applicants for the purpose of carrying out
demolition, revitalization, and replacement programs for
severely distressed public housing under this section. The
Secretary may make a grant for the revitalization or
replacement of public housing only if the agency demonstrates
that the neighborhood is or will be a viable residential
community, as defined by the Secretary, after completion of
the work assisted under this section and any other
neighborhood improvements planned by the State or local
government or otherwise to be provided. The Secretary may
approve grants providing assistance for one eligible activity
or a combination of eligible activities under this section,
including assistance only for demolition and assistance only
for tenant-based assistance in accordance with the provisions
of section 8.'';
(4) in subsection (d)(2)(B)--
(A) by striking ``the redesign'' and inserting ``the
abatement of environmental hazards, demolition, redesign'';
and
(B) by striking ``is located'' and inserting ``is or was
located'';
(5) in subsection (d)(2), by redesignating subparagraphs
(C) through (I) as subparagraphs (D) through (J),
respectively, and inserting the following new subparagraph
after subparagraph (B):
``(C) replacement housing, which shall consist of public
housing, homeownership units as permitted under the HOPE VI
program (as previously authorized in appropriations Acts),
tenant-based assistance in accordance with the provisions of
section 8, or a combination;'';
(6)(A) in subsection (G), as redesignated by paragraph (5),
by inserting before the semicolon the following: ``and any
necessary supportive services, except that not more than 15
percent of any grant under this subsection may be used for
such purposes.'';
(B) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subsection (H), as
redesignated by paragraph (4); and
(C) by striking the semicolon at the end of subsection (I),
as redesignated by paragraph (4), and all that follows up to
the period;
(7) in paragraph (3), by striking the second sentence;
(8) by amending subsection (d)(4) to read as follows:
``(4) Selection criteria.--
``(A) Applications for demolition.--The Secretary shall
establish selection criteria for applications that request
assistance only for demolition, which shall include--
``(i) the need for demolition, taking into account the
effect of the distressed development on the public housing
agency and the community;
``(ii) the extent to which the public housing agency is not
able to undertake such activities without a grant under this
section;
``(iii) the extent of involvement of residents and State
and local governments in determining the need for demolition;
and
``(iv) such other factors as the Secretary determines
appropriate.
``(B) Applications for demolition, revitalization, and
replacement.--The Secretary shall establish selection
criteria for applications that request assistance for a
combination of eligible activities, which shall include--
``(i) the relationship of the grant to the comprehensive
plan for the locality;
``(ii) the extent to which the grant will result in a
viable development which will foster the economic and social
integration of public housing residents and the extent to
which the development will enhance the community;
``(iii) the capability and record of the applicant public
housing agency, its development team, or any alternative
management agency for the agency, for managing large-scale
redevelopment or modernization projects, meeting construction
timetables, and obligating amounts in a timely manner;
``(iv) the extent to which the public housing agency is not
able to undertake such activities without a grant under this
section;
``(v) the extent of involvement of residents, State and
local governments, private service providers, financing
entities, and developers, in the development of a
revitalization program for the development;
``(vi) the amount of funds and other resources to be
leveraged by the grant; and
``(vii) such other factors as the Secretary determines
appropriate.''
``(C) Applications for tenant-based assistance.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, the
Secretary may allocate tenant-based assistance under this
section on a non-competitive basis in connection with the
demolition or disposition of public housing.'';
(9) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:
``(e) Long Term Viability.--The Secretary may waive or
revise rules established under this Act governing the
development, management, and operation of public housing
units, to permit a public housing agency to undertake
measures that enhance the long-term viability of a severely
distressed public housing project revitalized under this
section; except that the Secretary may not waive or revise
the rent limitation under section 3(a)(1)(A) or the targeting
requirements under section 16(a).'';
(10) in subsection (f)--
(A) by striking ``OTHER'' and all that follows through
``(1)'';
(B) by striking paragraph (2); and
(C) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as
paragraphs (1) and (2);
(11) by striking subsections (g) and (i) and redesignating
subsection (h) as subsection (j);
(12) by inserting the following new subsections after
subsection (f):
``(g) Administration by Other Entities.--The Secretary may
require a grantee under this section to make arrangements
satisfactory to the Secretary for use of an entity other than
the public housing agency to carry out activities assisted
under the revitalization plan, if the Secretary determines
that such action will help to effectuate the purposes of this
section.
``(h) Timely expenditures.--
``(1) Withdrawal of funding.--If a grantee under this
section or under the HOPE VI program does not sign the
primary construction contract for the work included in the
grant agreement within 18 months from the date of the grant
agreement, the Secretary shall withdraw any grant amounts
under the grant agreement which have not been obligated by
the grantee. The Secretary shall redistribute any withdrawn
amounts to one or more applicants eligible for assistance
under this section. The Secretary may grant an extension of
up to one additional year from the date of enactment of this
Act if the 18-month period has expired as of the date of
enactment, for delays caused by factors beyond the control of
the grantee.
``(2) Completion.--A grant agreement under this section
shall provide for interim checkpoints and for completion of
physical activities within four years of execution, and the
Secretary shall enforce these requirements through default
remedies up to and including withdrawal of funding. The
Secretary may, however, provide for a longer timeframe, but
only when necessary due to factors beyond the control of the
grantee.
``(3) Inapplicability.--This subsection shall not apply to
grants for tenant-based assistance under section 8.
``(i) Inapplicability of Section 18.--Section 18 shall not
apply to the demolition of developments removed from the
inventory of the public housing agency under this section.'';
(13) by amending subsection (j)(1), as redesignated by
paragraph (11)--
(A) in subparagraph (C), by inserting after ``nonprofit
organization,'' the following: ``private program manager, a
partner in a mixed-finance development,'';
(B) at the end of subparagraph (B), after the semicolon, by
inserting ``and''; and
(C) at the end of subparagraph (C), by striking ``; and''
and all that follows up to the period;
(14) by amending subsection (j)(5), as redesignated by
paragraph (11)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``(i)'';
(ii) by striking clauses (ii) through (iv); and
(iii) by inserting after ``physical plant of the project''
the following: ``, where such distress cannot be remedied
through assistance under section 14 because of inadequacy of
available funding'';
(B) by amending subparagraph (A), as amended by
subparagraph (A) of this paragraph (14), by striking
``appropriately'' and inserting ``inappropriately''; and
(C) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
``(B) that was a project as described in subparagraph (A)
that has been demolished, but for which the Secretary has not
provided replacement housing assistance (other than tenant-
based assistance).'';
(15) by inserting at the end of subsection (j), as
redesignated by paragraph (11), the following new paragraph:
``(6) Supportive services.--The term `supportive services'
includes all activities that will promote upward mobility,
self-sufficiency, and improved quality of life for the
residents of the public housing development involved,
including literacy training, job training, day care, and
economic development activities.''; and
(16) by inserting the following new subsection at the end:
``(k) Technical Assistance and Program Oversight.--Of the
amount appropriated for any fiscal year for grants under this
section, the Secretary may use up to 2.5 percent for
technical assistance, program oversight, and fellowships for
on-site public housing agency assistance and supplemental
education. Technical assistance may be provided directly or
indirectly by grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements,
and may include training, and the cost of necessary travel
for participants in such training, by or to officials of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, of public
housing agencies, and of residents. The Secretary may use
amounts under this paragraph for program oversight to
contract with private program and construction management
entities to assure that development activities are carried
out in a timely and cost-effective manner.''.
SEC. 118. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION BOARD.
(a) Establishment.--There is hereby established a
performance evaluation board to
[[Page H2626]]
assist the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in
improving and monitoring the system for evaluation of public
housing authority performance, including by studying and
making recommendations to the Secretary on the most
effective, efficient and productive method or methods of
evaluating the performance of public housing agencies,
consistent with the overall goal of improving management of
the public housing program.
(b) Membership.--
(1) In general.--The board shall be composed of at least
seven members with relevant experience who shall be appointed
by the Secretary as soon as practicable, but not later than
90 days after enactment of this Act.
(2) Appointments.--In appointing members of the board, the
Secretary shall assure that each of the background areas set
forth in paragraph (3) are represented.
(3) Backgrounds.--Background areas to be represented are--
(A) major public housing organizations;
(B) public housing resident organizations;
(C) real estate management, finance, or development
entities; and
(D) units of general local government.
(c) Board Procedures.--
(1) Chairperson.--The Secretary shall appoint a chairperson
from among members of the board.
(2) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the board shall
constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
(3) Voting.--Each member of the board shall be entitled to
one vote, which shall be equal to the vote of each other
member of the board.
(4) Prohibition of 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.
(d) Powers.--
(1) Hearings.--The board may, for the purpose of carrying
out this section, hold such hearings and sit and act at such
times and places as the board determines appropriate.
(2) Assistance from federal agencies.--.
(A) Information.--The board may request from any agency of
the United States, and such agency is authorized to provide,
such data and information as the board may require for
carrying out its functions.
(B) Staff support.--Upon request of the chairperson of the
board, to assist the board in carrying out its duties under
this section, the Secretary may--
(i) provide an executive secretariat;
(ii) assign by detail or otherwise any of the personnel of
the Department of Housing and Urban Development; and
(iii) obtain by personal services contracts or otherwise
any technical or other assistance needed to carry out this
section.
(e) Advisory Committee.--The board shall be considered an
advisory committee within the meaning of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
(f) Functions.--The board shall, as needed--
(1) examine and assess the need for further modifications
to or replacement of the Public Housing Management Assessment
program, established by the Secretary under section 6(j) of
the United States Housing Act of 1937;
(2) examine and assess models used in other industries or
public programs to assess the performance of recipients of
assistance, including accreditation systems, and the
applicability of those models to public housing;
(3) develop (either itself, or through another body)
standards for professional competency for the public housing
industry, including methods of assessing the qualifications
of employees of public housing authorities, such as systems
for certifying the qualifications of employees;
(4) develop a system for increasing the use of on-site
physical inspections of public housing developments; and
(5) develop a system for increasing the use of independent
audits, as part of the overall system for evaluating the
performance of public housing agencies.
(g) Reports.--
(1) Not later than the expiration of the three-month period
beginning upon the appointment of the seventh member of the
board, and one year from such appointment, the board shall
issue interim reports to the Secretary on its activities. The
board shall make its final report and recommendations one
year after its second interim report is issued. The final
report shall include findings and recommendations of the
board based upon the functions carried out under this
section.
(2) After the board issues its final report, it may be
convened by its chair, upon the request of the Secretary, to
review implementation of the performance evaluation system
and for other purposes.
(h) Term.--The duration of the board shall be seven years.
(i) Funding.--The Secretary is authorized to use any
amounts appropriated under the head Preserving Existing
Housing Investment, or predecessor or successor appropriation
accounts, without regard to any earmarks of funding, to carry
out this section.
SEC. 119. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FOR
PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENTS.
The United States Housing Act of 1937 is amended by adding
the following new section after section 27:
``SEC. 28. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FOR
PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENTS.
``(a) In General.--To the extent provided in advance in
appropriations Acts, the Secretary shall make grants for the
purposes of providing a program of supportive services and
resident self-sufficiency activities to enable residents of
public housing to become economically self-sufficient and to
assist elderly persons and persons with disabilities to
maintain independent living, to the following eligible
applicants:
``(1) public housing agencies;
``(2) resident councils;
``(3) resident management corporations or other eligible
resident entities defined by the Secretary;
``(4) other applicants, as determined by the Secretary; and
``(5) any partnership of eligible applicants.
``(b) Eligible Activities.--Grantees under this section may
use grants for the provision of supportive service, economic
development, and self-sufficiency activities conducted
primarily for public housing residents in a manner that is
easily accessible to those residents. Such activities shall
include--
``(1) the provision of service coordinators and case
managers;
``(2) the provision of services related to work readiness,
including education, job training and counseling, job search
skills, business development training and planning, tutoring,
mentoring, adult literacy, computer access, personal and
family counseling, health screening, work readiness health
services, transportation, and child care;
``(3) economic and job development, including employer
linkages and job placement, and the start-up of resident
microenterprises, community credit unions, and revolving loan
funds, including the licensing, bonding and insurance needed
to operate such enterprises;
``(4) resident management activities, including related
training and technical assistance; and
``(5) other activities designed to improve the self-
sufficiency of residents, as may be determined in the sole
discretion of the Secretary.
``(c) Funding Distribution.--
``(1) In general.--After reserving such amounts as the
Secretary determines to be necessary for technical assistance
and clearinghouse services under subsection (d), the
Secretary shall distribute any remaining amounts made
available under this section on a competitive basis. The
Secretary may set a cap on the maximum grant amount permitted
under this section, and may limit applications for grants
under this section to selected applicants or categories of
applicants.
``(2) Selection criteria.--The Secretary shall establish
selection criteria for applications that request assistance
for one or more eligible activities under this section, which
shall include--
``(A) the demonstrated capacity of the applicant to carry
out a program of supportive services or resident empowerment
activities;
``(B) the amount of funds and other resources to be
leveraged by the grant;
``(C) the extent to which the grant will result in a
quality program of supportive services or resident
empowerment activities;
``(D) the extent to which any job training and placement
services to be provided are coordinated with the provision of
such services under the Job Training Partnership Act and the
Wagner-Peyser Act; and
``(E) such other factors as the Secretary determines
appropriate.
``(3) Matching requirement.--The Secretary may not make any
grant under this section to any applicant unless the
applicant supplements every dollar provided under this
subsection with an amount of funds from sources other than
this section equal to at least twice the amount provided
under this subsection, including amounts from other Federal
sources, any State or local government sources, any private
contributions, and the value of any in-kind services or
administrative costs provided. Of the supplemental funds
furnished by the applicant, not more than 50 percent may be
in the form of in-kind services or administrative costs
provided.
``(d) Funding for Technical Assistance.--The Secretary may
set aside a portion of the amounts appropriated under this
section, to be provided directly or indirectly by grants,
contracts, or cooperative agreements, for technical
assistance, which may include training and cost of necessary
travel for participants in such training, by or to officials
and employees of the Department and of public housing
agencies, and to residents and to other eligible grantees,
and for clearinghouse services in furtherance of the goals
and activities of this section.
``(e) Contract Administrators.--The Secretary may require
resident councils, resident management corporations, or other
eligible entities defined by the Secretary to utilize public
housing agencies or other qualified organizations as contract
administrators with respect to grants provided under this
section.''.
SEC. 120. PENALTY FOR SLOW EXPENDITURE OF MODERNIZATION
FUNDS.
Section 14(k)(5) of the United States Housing Act of 1937
is amended to read as follows:
``(5)(A) A public housing agency shall obligate any
assistance received under this section within 18 months of
the date funds become available to the agency for obligation.
The Secretary may extend this time period by no more than one
year if an agency's failure to obligate such assistance in a
timely manner is attributable to events beyond the
[[Page H2627]]
control of the agency. The Secretary may also provide an
exception for de minimis amounts to be obligated with the
next year's funding; an agency that owns or administers fewer
than 250 public housing units, to the extent necessary to
permit the agency to accumulate sufficient funding to
undertake activities; and any agency, to the extent necessary
to permit the agency to accumulate sufficient funding to
provide replacement housing.
``(B) A public housing agency shall not be awarded
assistance under this section for any month in a year in
which it has funds unobligated, in violation of subparagraph
(A). During such a year, the Secretary shall withhold all
assistance which would otherwise be provided to the agency.
If the agency cures its default during the year, it shall be
provided with the share attributable to the months remaining
in the year. Any funds not so provided to the agency shall be
provided to high-performing agencies as determined under
section 6(j).
``(C) If the Secretary has consented, before the date of
enactment of the Public Housing Management Reform Act of
1997, to an obligation period for any agency longer than
provided under this paragraph, an agency which obligates its
funds within such extended period shall not be considered to
be in violation of subparagraph (A). Notwithstanding any
prior consent of the Secretary, however, all funds
appropriated in fiscal year 1995 and prior years shall be
fully obligated by the end of fiscal year 1998, and all funds
appropriated in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 shall be fully
obligated by the end of fiscal year 1999.
``(D) A public housing agency shall spend any assistance
received under this section within four years (plus the
period of any extension approved by the Secretary under
subparagraph (A)) of the date funds become available to the
agency for obligation. The Secretary shall enforce this
requirement through default remedies up to and including
withdrawal of the funding. Any obligation entered into by an
agency shall be subject to the right of the Secretary to
recapture the amounts for violation by the agency of the
requirements of this subparagraph.''.
SEC. 121. DESIGNATION OF PHA'S AS TROUBLED.
(a) Section 6(j)(1)(A) of the United States Housing Act of
1937, as amended by sections 108 and 109, is further
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting the following after
clause (x):
``(xi) Whether the agency is providing acceptable basic
housing conditions, as determined by the Secretary.''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) by redesignating clause (v) as clause (vi); and
(B) by inserting the following after clause (iv):
``(v) Whether the agency is providing acceptable basic
housing conditions, as determined by the Secretary.''.
(b) Section 6(j)(2)(A)(i) of such Act is amended by
inserting the following after the first sentence: ``Such
procedures shall provide that an agency that does not provide
acceptable basic housing conditions shall be designated a
troubled public housing agency.''.
(c) Section 6(j)(2)(A)(i) of such Act is amended in the
first sentence--
(1) by inserting before ``the performance indicators'' the
subclause designation ``(I)''; and
(2) by inserting before the period the following: ``; or
(II) such other evaluation system as is determined by the
Secretary to assess the condition of the public housing
agency or resident management corporation, which system may
be in addition to or in lieu of the performance indicators
established under paragraph (1)''.
SEC. 122. VOLUNTEER SERVICES UNDER THE 1937 ACT.
(a) In General.--Section 12(b) of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 is amended by striking ``that--'' and all that
follows up to the period and inserting ``who performs
volunteer services in accordance with the requirements of the
Community Improvement Volunteer Act of 1994''.
(b) CIVA Amendment.--Section 7305 of the Community
Improvement Volunteer Act of 1994 is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by inserting the following paragraph after paragraph
(6):
``(7) the United States Housing Act of 1937.''.
SEC. 123. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR OPERATION SAFE
HOME PROGRAM.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the
Operation Safe Home program $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1998
and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1999,
2000, 2001, and 2002.
TITLE II--SECTION 8 STREAMLINING AND OTHER PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
SEC. 201. PERMANENT REPEAL OF FEDERAL PREFERENCES.
(a) Notwithstanding section 402(f) of The Balanced Budget
Downpayment Act, I, the amendments made by section 402(d) of
that Act shall remain in effect after fiscal year 1997,
except that the amendments made by sections 402(d)(3) and
402(d)(6)(A)(iii), (iv), and (vi) of such Act shall remain in
effect as amended by sections 203 and 116 of this Act, and
section 402(d)(6)(v) shall be repealed by the amendments made
to section 16 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 by
section 202 of this Act.
(b) Section 6(c)(4)(A) of the United States Housing Act of
1937, as amended by section 402(d)(1) of The Balanced Budget
Downpayment Act, I, is amended by striking ``is'' and all
that follows through ``Act'' and inserting the following:
``shall be based upon local housing needs and priorities, as
determined by the public housing agency using generally
accepted data sources, including any information obtained
pursuant to an opportunity for public comment under this
subparagraph, under section 5A(b), and under the requirements
of the approved Consolidated Plan for the locality''.
(c) Section 8(d)(1)(A) of the United States Housing Act of
1937, as amended by section 402(d)(2) of The Balanced Budget
Downpayment Act, I, is amended by striking ``is'' and all
that follows through ``Act'' and inserting the following:
``shall be based upon local housing needs and priorities, as
determined by the public housing agency using generally
accepted data sources, including any information obtained
pursuant to an opportunity for public comment under this
subparagraph, under section 5A(b), and under the requirements
of the approved Consolidated Plan for the locality''.
SEC. 202. INCOME TARGETING FOR PUBLIC HOUSING AND SECTION 8
PROGRAMS.
(a) Section 16 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 is
amended by revising the heading and subsections (a) through
(c) to read as follows:
``SEC. 16. ELIGIBILITY FOR PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING.
``(a) Public Housing.--
``(1) Program requirement.--Of the public housing units of
a public housing agency made available for occupancy by
eligible families in any fiscal year of the agency--
``(A) at least 40 percent shall be occupied by families
whose incomes do not exceed 30 percent of the median income
for the area; and
``(B) at least 90 percent shall be occupied by families
whose incomes do not exceed 60 percent of the median income
for the area; except that, for any fiscal year, the Secretary
may reduce to 80 percent the percentage under this
subparagraph for a public housing agency if the agency
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that such
reduction would be used for, and would result in, the
enhancement of the long-term viability of the housing
developments of the agency.
``(2) Development requirement.--At least 40 percent of the
units in each public housing development shall be occupied by
families with incomes which are less than 30 percent of the
median income for the area, except that no family may be
required to move to achieve compliance with this requirement.
``(b) Section 8 Assistance.--
``(1) Tenant-based, moderate rehabilitation, and project-
based certificate assistance.--In any fiscal year of a public
housing agency, at least 75 percent of all families who
initially receive tenant-based assistance from the agency,
assistance under the moderate rehabilitation program of the
agency, or assistance under the project-based certificate
program of the agency shall be families whose incomes do not
exceed 30 percent of the median income for the area.
``(2) Project-based assistance.--Of the dwelling units in a
project receiving section 8 assistance, other than assistance
described in paragraph (1), that are made available for
occupancy by eligible families in any year (as determined by
the Secretary)--
``(A) at least 40 percent shall be occupied by families
whose incomes do not exceed 30 percent of the median income
for the area; and
``(B) at least 90 percent shall be occupied by families
whose incomes do not exceed 60 percent of the median income
for the area.
``(c) Definition of Area Median Income.--The term `area
median income', as used in subsections (a) and (b), refers to
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 subsections (a) and (b) if
the Secretary determines that such variations are necessary
because of unusually high or low family incomes.''.
(b) Section 16 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as
amended by this section, is further amended by inserting the
following new heading after subsection designation (d):
``Applicability.--''.
SEC. 203. MERGER OF TENANT-BASED ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.
(a) Section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937
is amended to read as follows:
``(o) Rental Certificates.--(1) A public housing agency may
only enter into contracts for tenant-based rental assistance
under this Act pursuant to this subsection. The Secretary may
provide rental assistance using a payment standard in
accordance with this subsection. The payment standard shall
be used to determine the monthly assistance which may be paid
for any family.
``(2)(A) The payment standard may not exceed the FMR/
exception rent limit. The payment standard may not be less
than 80 percent of the FMR/exception rent limit.
``(B) The term `FMR/exception rent limit' means the section
8 existing housing fair market rent published by HUD in
accordance with subsection (c)(1) or any exception rent
approved by HUD for a designated part of the fair market rent
area. HUD may approve an
[[Page H2628]]
exception rent of up to 120 percent of the published fair
market rent.
``(3)(A) For assistance under this subsection provided by a
public housing agency on and after October 1, 1998, to the
extent approved in appropriations Acts, the monthly
assistance payment for any family that moves to another unit
in another complex or moves to a single family dwelling shall
be the amount determined by subtracting the family
contribution as determined in accordance with section 3(a)
from the applicable payment standard, except that such
monthly assistance payment shall not exceed the amount by
which the rent for the dwelling unit (including the amount
allowed for utilities in the case of a unit with separate
utility metering) exceeds 10 percent of the family's monthly
income.
``(B) For any family not covered by subparagraph (A), the
monthly assistance payment for the family shall be determined
by subtracting the family contribution as determined in
accordance with section 3(a) from the lower of the applicable
payment standard and the rent for the dwelling unit
(including the amount allowed for utilities in the case of a
unit with separate utility metering).
``(4) Assistance payments may be made only for:
``(A) a family determined to be a very low-income family at
the time the family initially receives assistance, or
``(B) another low-income family in circumstances determined
by the Secretary.
``(5) If a family vacates a dwelling unit before the
expiration of a lease term, no assistance payment may be made
with respect to the unit after the month during which the
unit was vacated.
``(6) The Secretary shall require that:
``(A) the public housing agency shall inspect the unit
before any assistance payment may be made to determine that
the unit meets housing quality standards for decent, safe,
and sanitary housing established by the Secretary for the
purpose of this section, and
``(B) the public housing agency shall make annual or more
frequent inspections during the contract term. No assistance
payment may be made for a dwelling unit which fails to meet
such quality standards.
``(7) The rent for units assisted under this subsection
shall be reasonable in comparison with rents charged for
comparable units in the private unassisted market. A public
housing agency shall review all rents for units under
consideration by families assisted under this subsection (and
all rent increases for units under lease by families assisted
under this subsection) to determine whether the rent (or rent
increase) requested by an owner is reasonable. If a public
housing agency determines that the rent (or rent increase)
for a unit is not reasonable, the agency may not approve a
lease for such unit.
``(8) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this
subsection, section 8(c) of this Act does not apply to
assistance under this subsection.''.
(b) In Section 3(a)(1) of the United States Housing Act of
1937, the second sentence is revised as follows:
(1) by striking ``or paying rent under section
8(c)(3)(B)''; and
(2) by striking ``the highest of the following amounts,
rounded to the nearest dollar:'' and inserting ``and the
family contribution for a family assisted under section 8(o)
or 8(y) shall be the highest of the following amounts,
rounded to the next dollar:''.
(c) Section 8(b) of the United States Housing Act is
amended--
(1) by striking ``Rental Certificates and Other Existing
Housing Programs.--'' and inserting ``(1)''; and
(2) by striking the second sentence.
(d) Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 is
amended--
(1) by striking subsection (c)(3)(B);
(2) in subsection (d)(2), by striking subparagraphs (A),
(B), (C), (D) and (E); and by redesignating subparagraphs
(F), (G) and (H) as subparagraphs (A), (B) and (C)
respectively;
(3) in subsection (f)(6), as redesignated by section
306(b)(2) of this Act, by striking ``under subsection (b) or
(o)''; and
(4) by striking subsection (j).
SEC. 204. SECTION 8 ADMINISTRATIVE FEES.
(a) Section 202(a)(1)(A) of the Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997 is amended by--
(1) striking ``7.5 percent'' and inserting ``7.65
percent'';
(2) striking ``a program of'' and inserting ``one or more
such programs totaling''; and
(3) inserting before the final period, ``of such total
units''.
(b) The amendments made by this section shall be effective
as of October 1, 1997.
SEC. 205. SECTION 8 HOMEOWNERSHIP.
(a) Amendments to section 8(y).--Section 8(y) of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``A family receiving''
through ``if the family'' and inserting the following: ``A
public housing agency providing tenant-based assistance on
behalf of an eligible family under this section may provide
assistance for an eligible family that purchases a dwelling
unit (including a unit under a lease-purchase agreement) that
will be owned by one or more members of the family, and will
be occupied by the family, if the family'';
(2) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting before the semicolon
the following: ``, or owns or is acquiring shares in a
cooperative'';
(3) in paragraph (1), by amending paragraph (B) to read as
follows:
``(B)(i) in the case of disabled families and elderly
families, demonstrates that the family has income from
employment or other sources, as determined in accordance with
requirements of the Secretary, in such amount as may be
established by the Secretary; and
``(ii) in the case of other families, demonstrates that the
family has income from employment, as determined in
accordance with requirements of the Secretary, in such amount
as may be established by the Secretary;'';
(4) in paragraph (1)(C), by striking ``except as'' and
inserting ``except in the case of disabled families and
elderly families and as otherwise'';
(5) in paragraph (1), by inserting at the end the
following: ``The Secretary or the public housing agency may
target assistance under this subsection for program purposes,
such as to families assisted in connection with the FHA
multifamily demonstration under section 212 of the
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act,
1997.'';
(6) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
``(2) Determination of amount of assistance.--The monthly
assistance payment for any family shall be the amount
determined by subtracting the family contribution as
determined under section 3(a) of this Act from the lower of:
``(A) the applicable payment standard, or
``(B) the monthly homeownership expenses, as determined in
accordance with requirements established by the Secretary, of
the family.'';
(7) by redesignating paragraphs (6), (7), and (8), as
paragraphs (9), (10), and (11), respectively;
(8) by striking paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) and inserting
the following after paragraph (2):
``(3) Inspections and contract conditions.--Each contract
for the purchase of a unit to be assisted under this section
shall provide for pre-purchase inspection of the unit by an
independent professional and shall require that any cost of
necessary repairs shall be paid by the seller. The
requirement under section 8(o)(5)(B) for annual inspections
of the unit shall not apply to units assisted under this
section.
``(4) Downpayment requirement.--Each public housing agency
providing assistance under this subsection shall require that
each assisted family make a significant contribution, from
its own resources, determined in accordance with guidelines
established by the Secretary, to cover all or a portion of
the downpayment required in connection with the purchase,
which may include credit for work by one or more family
members to improve the dwelling (``sweat equity'').
``(5) Reserve for replacements.--The Secretary shall
require each family to pay an amount equal to one percent of
the monthly amount payable by the family for principal and
interest on its acquisition loan into a reserve for repairs
and replacements for five years after the date of purchase.
Any amounts remaining in the reserve after five years shall
be paid to the family.
``(6) Application of net proceeds upon sale.--The Secretary
shall require that the net proceeds upon sale by a family of
a unit owned by the family while it received assistance under
this subsection shall be divided between the public housing
agency and the family. The Secretary shall establish
guidelines for determining the amount to be received by the
family and the amount to be received by the agency, which
shall take into account the relative amount of assistance
provided on behalf of the family in comparison with the
amount paid by the family from its own resources. The
Secretary shall require the agency to use any amounts
received under this paragraph to provide assistance under
subsection (o) or this subsection.
``(7) Limitation on size of program.--A public housing
agency may permit no more than 10 percent of the families
receiving tenant-based assistance provided by the agency to
use the assistance for homeownership under this subsection.
The Secretary may permit no more than 5 percent of all
families receiving tenant-based assistance to use the
assistance for homeownership under this subsection.
``(8) Other program requirements.--The Secretary may
establish such other requirements and limitations the
Secretary determines to be appropriate in connection with the
provision of assistance under this section, which may include
limiting the term of assistance for a family. The Secretary
may modify the requirements of this subsection where
necessary to make appropriate adaptations for lease-purchase
agreements. The Secretary shall establish performance
measures and procedures to monitor the provision of
assistance under this subsection in relation to the purpose
of providing homeownership opportunities for eligible
families.'';
(9) in paragraph (10)(A)), as redesignated by paragraph (7)
of this section, is amended--
(A) by striking ``dwelling, (ii)'' and inserting
``dwelling, and (ii)''; and
(B) by striking ``, (iii)'' and all that follows up to the
period; and
(10) by inserting after paragraph (11), as redesignated by
paragraph (7) of this section, the following:
``(12) Sunset.--The authority to provide assistance to
additional families under this subsection shall terminate on
September 30,
[[Page H2629]]
2002. The Secretary shall then prepare a report evaluating
the effectiveness of homeownership assistance under this
subsection.''.
(b) Family Self-Sufficiency Escrow.--Section 23(d)(3) of
the United States Housing Act of 1937 is repealed.
SEC. 206. WELFARE TO WORK CERTIFICATES.
(a) To the extent of amounts approved in appropriations
Acts, the Secretary may provide funding for welfare to work
certificates in accordance with this section.
``Certificates'' means tenant-based rental assistance in
accordance with section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act
of 1937.
(b) Funding under this section shall be used for a
demonstration linking use of such certificate assistance with
welfare reform initiatives to help families make the
transition from welfare to work, and for technical assistance
in connection with such demonstration.
(c) Funding may only be awarded upon joint application by a
public housing agency and a State or local welfare agency.
Allocation of demonstration funding is not subject to section
213 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
(d) Assistance provided under this section shall not be
taken into account in determining the size of the family
self-sufficiency program of a public housing agency under
section 23 of the United States Housing Act of 1937.
(e) For purposes of the demonstration, the Secretary may
waive, or specify alternative requirements for, requirements
established by or under this Act concerning the certificate
program, including requirements concerning the amount of
assistance, the family contribution, and the rent payable by
the family.
SEC. 207. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
REQUIREMENTS.
Section 3(a) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as
amended by section 103, is amended by inserting the following
after paragraph (3):
``(4)(A) If the welfare or public assistance benefits of a
covered family, as defined in subparagraph (G)(i), are
reduced under a Federal, State, or local law regarding such
an assistance program because any member of the family
willfully failed to comply with program conditions requiring
participation in a self-sufficiency program or requiring work
activities as defined in subparagraphs (G)(ii) and (iii), the
family may not, for the duration of the reduction, have the
amount of rent or family contribution determined under this
subsection reduced as the result of any decrease in the
income of the family (to the extent that the decrease in
income is the result of the benefits reduction).
``(B) If the welfare or public assistance benefits of a
covered family are reduced under a Federal, State, or local
law regarding the welfare or public assistance program
because any member of the family willfully failed to comply
with the self-sufficiency or work activities requirements,
the portion of the amount of any increase in the earned
income of the family occurring after such reduction up to the
amount of the reduction for noncompliance shall not result in
an increase in the amount of rent or family contribution
determined under this subsection during the period the family
would otherwise be eligible for welfare or public assistance
benefits under the program.
``(C) Any covered family residing in public housing that is
affected by the operation of this paragraph shall have the
right to review the determination under this paragraph
through the administrative grievance procedures established
pursuant to section 6(k) for the public housing agency.
``(D) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any covered
family before the public housing agency providing assistance
under this Act on behalf of the family receives written
notification from the relevant welfare or public assistance
agency specifying that the benefits of the family have been
reduced because of noncompliance with self-sufficiency
program requirements and the level of such reduction.
``(E) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply in any case in which
the benefits of a family are reduced because the welfare or
public assistance program to which the Federal, State, or
local law relates limits the period during which benefits may
be provided under the program.
``(F) This paragraph may not be construed to authorize any
public housing agency to limit the duration of tenancy in a
public housing dwelling unit or of tenant-based assistance.
``(G) For purposes of this section--
``(i) The term `covered family' means a family that--
``(I) receives benefits for welfare or public assistance
from a State or other public agency under a program for which
the Federal, State, or local law relating to the program
requires, as a condition of eligibility for assistance under
the program, participation of a member of the family in a
self-sufficiency program or work activities; and
``(II) resides in a public housing dwelling unit or
receives assistance under section 8.
``(ii) The term `self-sufficiency program' means any
program designed to encourage, assist, train, or facilitate
the economic independence of participants and their families
or to provide work for participants, including programs for
job training, employment counseling, work placement, basic
skills training, education, workfare, money or household
management, apprenticeship, or other activities.
``(iii) The term `work activities' means--
``(I) unsubsidized employment;
``(II) subsidized private sector employment;
``(III) subsidized public sector employment;
``(IV) work experience (including work associated with the
refurbishing of publicly assisted housing) if sufficient
private sector employment is not available;
``(V) on-the job training;
``(VI) job search and job readiness assistance;
``(VII) community service programs;
``(VIII) vocational education training (not to exceed 12
months with respect to any individual;
``(IX) job skills training directly related to employment;
``(X) education directly related to employment, in the case
of a recipient who has not received a high school diploma or
certificate of high school equivalency;
``(XI) satisfactory attendance at secondary school or in a
course of study leading to a certificate of general
equivalence, in the case of a recipient who has not completed
secondary school or received such a certificate; and
``(XII) the provision of child care services to an
individual who is participating in a community service
program.''.
SEC. 208. STREAMLINING SECTION 8 TENANT-BASED ASSISTANCE.
(a) Repeal of Take-One, Take-All Requirement.--Section 8(t)
of the United States Housing Act of 1937 is hereby repealed.
(b) Exemption From Notice Requirements for the Certificate
and Voucher Programs.--Section 8(c) of such Act is amended--
(1) in paragraph (8), by inserting after ``section'' the
following: ``(other than a contract for tenant-based
assistance)''; and
(2) in the first sentence of paragraph (9), by striking
``(but not less than 90 days in the case of housing
certificates or vouchers under subsection (b) or (o))'' and
inserting ``, other than a contract for tenant-based
assistance under this section''.
(c) Endless Lease.--Section 8(d)(1)(B) of such Act is
amended--
(1) in clause (ii), by inserting ``during the term of the
lease,'' after ``(ii)''; and
(2) in clause (iii), by striking ``provide that'' and
inserting ``during the term of the lease,''.
(d) Repeal.--Section 203 of the Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 is hereby repealed.
SEC. 209. NONDISCRIMINATION AGAINST CERTIFICATE AND VOUCHER
HOLDERS.
In the case of any multifamily rental housing that is
receiving, or (except for insurance referred to in paragraph
(4)) has received within two years before the effective date
of this section, the benefit of Federal assistance from an
agency of the United States, the owner shall not refuse to
lease a reasonable number of units to families under the
tenant-based assistance program under section 8 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 because of the status of the
prospective tenants as families under that program. The
Secretary shall establish reasonable time periods for
applying the requirement of this section, taking into account
the total amount of the assistance and the relative share of
the assistance compared to the total cost of financing,
developing, rehabilitating, or otherwise assisting a project.
Federal assistance for purposes of this subsection shall
mean--
(1) project-based assistance under the United States
Housing Act of 1937;
(2) assistance under title I of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974;
(3) assistance under title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act;
(4) mortgage insurance under the National Housing Act;
(5) low-income housing tax credits under section 42 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
(6) assistance under title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney
Homeless Assistance Act; and
(7) assistance under any other programs designated by the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
SEC. 210. RECAPTURE AND REUSE OF ACC PROJECT RESERVES UNDER
TENANT-BASED ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
Section 8(d) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 is
amended by inserting at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) To the extent that the Secretary determines that the
amount in the ACC reserve account under a contract with a
public housing agency for tenant-based assistance under this
section is in excess of the amount needed by the agency, the
Secretary shall recapture such excess amount. The Secretary
may hold recaptured amounts in reserve until needed to amend
or renew such contracts with any agency.''.
SEC. 211. EXPANDING THE COVERAGE OF THE 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:
[[Page H2630]]
``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 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
[[Page H2631]]
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 3 of the
United States Housing Act of 1937.''.
(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 ``Public Housing Management Reform 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.'';
(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.
SEC. 212. STUDY REGARDING RENTAL ASSISTANCE.
The Secretary shall conduct a nationwide study of the
tenant-based rental assistance program under section 8 of the
United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect pursuant to
section 601(c) and 602(b)). The study shall, for various
localities--
(1) determine who are the providers of the housing in which
families assisted under such program reside;
(2) describe and analyze the physical and demographic
characteristics of the housing in which such assistance is
used, including, for housing in which at least one such
assisted family resides, the total number of units in the
housing and the number of units in the housing for which such
assistance is provided;
(3) determine the total number of units for which such
assistance is provided;
(4) describe the durations that families remain on waiting
lists before being provided such housing assistance; and
(5) assess the extent and quality of participation of
housing owners in such assistance program in relation to the
local housing market, including comparing--
(A) the quality of the housing assisted to the housing
generally available in the same market; and
(B) the extent to which housing is available to be occupied
using such assistance to the extent to which housing is
generally available in the same market.
The Secretary shall submit a report describing the results of
the study to the Congress not later than the expiration of
the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of
this Act.
TITLE III--``ONE-STRIKE AND YOU'RE OUT'' OCCUPANCY PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. SCREENING OF APPLICANTS.
(a) Ineligibility Because of Past Evictions.--Any household
or member of a household evicted from federally assisted
housing (as defined in section 305) by reason of drug-related
criminal activity (as defined in section 305) or for other
serious violations of the terms or conditions of the lease
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 three years
from the date of the eviction unless the evicted member of
the household successfully completes a rehabilitation
program; and
(2) for other evictions, 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
Abusers.--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--
(1) who the public housing agency or the owner determines
is engaging in the illegal use of a controlled substance; or
(2) with respect to whom the public housing agency or the
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.
(c) Consideration of Rehabilitation.--In determining
whether, pursuant to subsection (b)(2), 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--
[[Page H2632]]
(1) 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);
(2) 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
(3) 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).
(d) Authority To Deny Admission to the Program or to
Federally Assisted Housing for Certain Criminal Offenders.--
In addition to the provisions of 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 drug-related or violent criminal
activity or other criminal activity which would adversely
affect the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of
the premises by other residents, the owner or public housing
agency may--
(1) deny such applicant admission to the program or to
federally assisted housing; and
(2) after 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 owner or public housing agency evidence
sufficient (as the Secretary shall by regulation provide) to
ensure that the individual or individuals in the applicant's
household who engaged in such criminal activity for which
denial was made under this subsection have not engaged in any
such criminal activity during such reasonable time.
(e) Authority To Require Access to Criminal Records.----A
public housing agency may require, as a condition of
providing admission to the public housing program, that each
adult member of the household provide a signed, written
authorization for the public housing agency to obtain records
described in section 304 regarding such member of the
household from the National Crime Information Center, police
departments, and other law enforcement agencies.
SEC. 302. TERMINATION OF TENANCY AND ASSISTANCE.
(a) 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 a public
housing agency or the 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.
(b) Termination of Assistance for Serious Lease
Violation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
public housing agency must terminate tenant-based assistance
for all household members if the household is evicted from
assisted housing for serious violation of the lease.
SEC. 303. 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
serious or repeated violation of the terms and conditions of
the lease, violation of applicable Federal, State, or local
law, or other good cause; and
(2) grounds for termination of tenancy shall include any
activity, engaged in by the tenant, any member of the
tenant's household, any guest, or any other person under the
control of any member of the household, that--
(A) threatens the health or safety of, or right to peaceful
enjoyment of the premises by, other tenants or employees of
the public housing agency, owner or other manager of the
housing,
(B) threatens the health or safety of, or right to peaceful
enjoyment of their residences by, persons residing in the
immediate vicinity of the premises, or
(C) is drug-related or violent criminal activity on or off
the premises.
SEC. 304. AVAILABILITY OF CRIMINAL RECORDS FOR PUBLIC HOUSING
TENANT SCREENING AND EVICTION.
(a) In General.--
(1) Provision of information.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law other than paragraphs (2) and (3), 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, the public 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 such public housing
agency.
(2) Exception.--A law enforcement agency described in
paragraph (1) shall provide information under this paragraph
relating to 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 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 public
housing agency 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. However, 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 any public housing agency 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 for public housing on the
basis of a criminal record, the public housing agency 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).
(e) Records Management.--Each public housing agency that
receives criminal record information under this section shall
establish and implement a system of records management that
ensures that any criminal record received by the agency 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 resident of, public housing pursuant to the authority
under this section under false pretenses, or any person who
knowingly or 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.
(g) Civil Action.--Any applicant for, or resident of,
public housing affected by (1) a negligent or knowing
disclosure of information referred to in this section about
such person by an officer or employee of any public housing
agency, 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 responsible for such unauthorized
action. The district court of the United States in the
district in which the affected applicant or resident resides,
in which such unauthorized action occurred, or in which the
officer or employee 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 of Adult.--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. 305. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this title, the following definitions shall
apply:
(1) Federally assisted housing.--The term ``federally
assisted housing'' means a unit in--
(A) public housing under the United States Housing Act of
1937;
(B) housing assisted under section 8 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 including both tenant-based assistance
and project-based assistance;
(C) 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);
(D) housing that is assisted under section 202 of the
Housing Act of 1959, as such section existed before enactment
of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act;
(E) housing that is assisted under section 811 of the
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act;
(F) 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;
(G) housing with a mortgage insured, assisted, or held by
the Secretary or a State or State agency under section 236 of
the National Housing Act; and
[[Page H2633]]
(H) for purposes only of subsections 301(c), 301(d), 303,
and 304, housing assisted under section 515 of the Housing
Act of 1949.
(2) Drug-related criminal activity.--The term ``drug-
related criminal activity'' means the illegal manufacture,
sale, distribution, use, or possession with intent to
manufacture, sell, distribute, or use, of a controlled
substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)).
(3) 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.
SEC. 306. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Consolidation of Public Housing One Strike
Provisions.--Section 6 of the United States Housing Act of
1937 is amended--
(1) by striking subsections (l)(4) and (l)(5) and the last
sentence of subsection (l), and redesignating paragraphs (6)
and (7) as paragraphs (4) and (5);
(2) by striking subsection (q); and
(3) by striking subsection (r).
(b) Consolidation of Section 8 One Strike Provisions.--
Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C.
1437f) is amended--
(1) by striking subsections (d)(1)(B)(ii) and
(d)(1)(B)(iii), and redesignating clauses (iv) and (v) as
clauses (ii) and (iii); and
(2) by striking subsection (f)(5) and redesignating
paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs (5) and (6),
respectively.
(c) Consolidation of One Strike Eligibility Provisions.--
Section 16 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 is
amended by striking subsection (e).
TITLE IV--TREATMENT OF AMOUNTS
SEC. 401. REQUIREMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, any
provision of this Act or of any amendment made by this Act
that otherwise provides amounts or makes amounts available
shall be effective only to the extent or in such amounts as
are or have been provided in advance in appropriation Acts.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to discussions I have
had with the gentleman from Massachusetts, I ask unanimous consent that
a time limitation be set on the substitute amendment that is offered by
the gentleman from Massachusetts for a total of 60 minutes, 30 minutes
controlled by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and 30
minutes controlled by myself, with no amendments thereto.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] will control 30 minutes and the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Lazio] will control 30 minutes.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this substitute, I think, gets to the cause and the
hopes and the dreams of so many of the tens of thousands of very low-
income Americans that public housing and assisted housing is designed
to protect and provide basic shelter to.
Sponsors of H.R. 2 are trying to portray the choice between the bill
that has been proposed by the other side of the aisle and the
Democratic substitute as status quo versus reform; between policies
which doom the very poor to poverty and despair and policies which give
them hope.
It is patently absurd. The Democratic substitute meets all of the
goals that the Republicans articulate. It contains all of the reforms
that we need in public and assisted housing. The difference between the
substitute and H.R. 2 is that H.R. 2 includes a number of radical
policies which abandon our commitment to the poor, create more
political influence in housing, and create new and unneeded
bureaucracies.
The National League of Cities, the very group of people that the
sponsors of H.R. 2 claim are going to welcome the block granting of the
housing funding, actually oppose the bill because they recognize the
terrible and damning results that have occurred as a result of the
politicization of housing funds at the local level.
Study after study has been done that indicate that once the funding
for housing becomes politicized, once the housing authorities become
the dumping grounds of political appointments, that they have, in
effect, lost their capabilities of dealing with the housing needs in
the local community.
The National League of Cities also urged Members to support the
superior substitute bill which is offered by, guess who, Joe Kennedy.
The Clinton administration opposes H.R. 2. The administration formally
opposes H.R. 2 and it has listed eight specific provisions that should
be amended. All eight administration concerns are met through the
provisions of the Democratic substitute.
Public housing groups themselves do not support H.R. 2. If we go
through, almost every one of the public housing associations, including
NAHRO, have now opposed it.
The substitute eliminates the work disincentives. We have had a
perverse situation occurring with regard to public housing over the
course of the last several years where, in fact, we have had a
disincentive for people in public housing to go to work because, if
they do, more of their income would be captured as a result of the
elimination of the Brooke amendment. We have continued the Brooke
amendment. We have called for flat rents with income disregards and
income phase-ins.
The Democratic substitute increases the working poor in public
housing. We will hear time and time again that what the Democrats are
trying to do is go back to the same-old, same-old policies which ended
up with these great monstrosities of public housing where nothing but
the poorest of the poor were warehoused. That is not true.
I wish that the Members of this House could listen to this debate
without hearing Democrat or Republican, but just listening to the
substance of what we are talking about. The difference between the
Republican version and the Democratic version is very simple. The
Republicans over the next 10 years will throw 80 percent of the very
poor out of public housing. Eighty percent of the very poor will be
boomed out of public housing. There will not be a requirement that they
will be taking single, very low-income people into public housing.
What we will do then is eliminate all the standards with regard to
assisted housing. So what we end up with is we end up solving the
problems of housing in America by abandoning the poor. That is no
solution to the housing problems of our country. That is abandonment of
our basic responsibilities. We can look great to the rest of the
Congress and to the people all across the country by eliminating all
the problems in public housing, but we do it by fundamentally turning
our back on the poorest and most vulnerable amongst us. And that is, I
think, an abandonment of our basic responsibilities.
This substitutes recognizes the fact we need to have more working
families involved in public housing. And over the period of the next 10
years under the bill that we have proposed, 50 percent of the people in
public housing would be very, very low-income people and 50 percent of
the people would be working families.
What we do not want to do is sentence working families into rental
programs. We want, where we can, to encourage home ownership. Families
that earn $25 or $30 or $40,000 a year worth of income in every city
across America are now eligible for private home ownership programs
provided through our banks and insurance companies and others.
That is what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and all the rest of the
organizations are set up to provide; home ownership. Why sentence
people that can afford to own their own homes into becoming tenants?
What we are trying to suggest is that there are some very low-income
people.
We have cut the housing budget in this country from close to $30
billion, $28 billion, down to just $20 billion. We have cut the
homeless budget of America by 25 percent, and then we come back and we
say now that we have done that, in order to keep the local housing
authorities moving forward, what we really need to do is throw the poor
people out of public housing. We need to jack up the rents so that the
public housing authorities do not go under and, by the way, we will cut
the homeless budget. It is a crazy thing to do. It does not solve the
problems of America, but it does solve the problem of the Congress.
So I ask my colleagues to please consider looking at what is actually
contained in the substitute, recognizing we have gotten rid of the work
disincentives, recognizing we do come up with a much better mix of
working families and the poor in low-income housing, and recognizing
that if we
[[Page H2634]]
want to take a radical approach of block granting the funding, of
making additional bureaucratic responsibilities, of telling people they
have to come up with personal improvement programs and voluntary
mandatory work requirements, then we go ahead and put in and institute
what H.R. 2 calls for.
But if we are really interested in fixing up public housing, if we
are really interested in making certain that we take care of the very
poor, there is nothing wrong with targeting the meager funds we put
into public housing. There is nothing wrong with making sure that those
meager funds end up serving the poorest and most vulnerable people in
America.
So I urge my colleagues to support the substitute amendment to H.R. 2
and oppose the provisions of this radical approach that has been
authored by the other side of the aisle.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues that they ought not to just be
listening to this debate but reading the bill itself, because, clearly,
there have been some misrepresentations about what this bill does.
We do not have to go very far. Just read it in black and white where
it says, in the bill, that at least 35 percent of all the units in
public housing must be reserved for those people below 30 percent of
median income, keeping no public housing authority from ensuring that
every single unit that it has, if it wants, can go to the poorest of
the poor.
But we are saying that if one has a minimum wage job and just happens
to be married to someone else who has a minimum wage job, then that
individual ought also to be able to participate in it. And under this
substitute those individuals would be shut out.
The gentleman from Massachusetts indicates that people would be
thrown out. There is absolutely nothing in this bill that would throw
out one low-income person from public housing. Not one. Not one.
The gentleman from Massachusetts mentions that the rents will go up.
How? Under current law, under current law people's rents are tied to
their income in this manner. People must pay 30 percent of their income
in rent. They cannot pay less than that. They must pay 30 percent of
their income in rent.
Under this bill, under H.R. 2, tenants will have an annual choice to
pay either up to 30 percent, and it might be lower, or to choose a flat
rent that is predetermined by the housing authority. And in that sense,
for many residents who are working, that will be a significantly lower
rent than exists under current law. And under no condition, under no
condition under this bill will people pay a dime more than they are
paying right now.
So the characterizations here on this floor must mesh with the
language in the bill. In fact, the Kennedy substitute is nothing more
than a watered down version of the administration's bill, which also
seeks a very meek, mild, look-the-other-way approach to the failure of
public housing in some of our Nation's largest cities.
We cannot afford to look the other way. We cannot afford to condemn
another generation of teenagers and young people to the type of public
housing that exists in some of our cities where they do not have a
chance for hope and opportunity. We say give people a choice, reward
work, make sure that families can stay together and protect levels of
excellence.
{time} 1345
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that this is the first
time the gentleman has ever accused me of a meek and mild approach to
anything. I would just point out that if Members read not just the big
print but the small print of this bill, they will find that under the
fungibility rules that have been proposed, there is not a single unit
of affordable housing for the very poor that has to go by any public
housing authority to the very poor. Second, the way the rents get
jacked up is by virtue of the fact that we are going to create an
enormous incentive by the local housing authority to go and get
wealthier tenants. That means greater amounts of rent are going to be
generated because of the incomes of the families. I am not suggesting
the individual rents on the people are going to go up, but what we are
doing is creating a policy that funnels wealthier and wealthier people
into public housing itself. That is what the problem with the bill is.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman from Massachusetts calls wealthy are
people that are making minimum wage or 50 cents or a dollar more than
minimum wage. That is where we have broad disagreement, where the
gentleman looks at people who are working for minimum wage in entry-
level jobs and sees them as wealthy and able to support rent at a
market rate. In fact I look at it and many Members who support these
efforts look at this and say that people who are struggling to work,
who accept the challenge of a minimum wage job, should not be shut out.
They should be helped. This is one of the dividing lines between, I
think, our two different perspectives. In fact, under the requirements
of this bill, the public housing authority must set aside at least 40
percent of its units for vouchers for the poorest of the poor, at least
35 percent of its units, and yes, it can mix and match between those
two, but in either case it must meet the minimum standards of meeting
the demands of the poorest of the poor, people making below 30 percent
of median income.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
Leach], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services.
Mr. LEACH. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, let me go first to the principle of this bill under the
Kennedy amendment that I think is very important. While the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] earlier in the debate in prior days
had offered an amendment to increase the funding by 50 percent, his
amendment on the floor today, as I understand it, has no increase in
funding. So what we are dealing with is the same dollar levels as the
committee bill, is that correct?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will yield, there is
no funding whatsoever contained in this particular provision. We would
be happy, if the chairman wanted to increase it back to the funding
levels of last year, to entertain an amendment to our amendment.
Mr. LEACH. I would recapture my time.
I would only stress to the committee and to the Members that these
are the same numbers as the committee product.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, it is not the same.
Mr. LEACH. There is no effort to raise or decrease in the gentleman's
amendment. I just make this clear to the committee.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield
just for a clarification?
Mr. LEACH. I have a limited amount of time. I would like to ask to
proceed at my own pace.
Mr. Chairman, we also would stress that the committee's numbers are
precisely the same numbers as the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, whose secretary is Mr. Cuomo, the gentleman's brother-in-
law.
The other point I would like to make here is that it has been my
impression as a Member who has been here almost two decades that one of
the reasons the total budget has to be out of whack in virtually every
area of Federal spending, including housing, is the terrific pressure
from each constituency group's perspective that has been brought to
bear. When Members establish reputations for always increasing a
program, they come to be known as the person that most defends that
particular constituency and, therefore, there is a particular
appreciation from that constituency that is extended.
But when numbers get out of whack, the fact of the matter is that the
sum budget totals can be at times counterproductive. So from a
constituency's point of view, there might well be a desire for more
numbers, despite the fact that the general public is often
disadvantaged. That is why we have these huge deficits and that is one
of the reasons why the growth in the economy
[[Page H2635]]
has been less impressive than otherwise.
I would stress to the Members of this body that when the Republican
Party came into power in 1994, there was an effort to constrain the
budget, including housing. When that effort came to pass, and it
usually takes about a year for effects to spin out in the economy, it
is impressive that American economic growth has increased.
Based on increased American economic growth, there are now more
revenues coming into the treasury that have made possible the recent
budget agreement between the executive and legislative branches that
has just come to pass, based on new projections of more revenue coming
in.
If we have budgets that are increasingly out of whack, we are not
only being unfair to young people in particular, who will be paying
Federal debt obligations back for the next 30 years, but we will have
less economic growth and thus fewer jobs in the economy.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEACH. I will not yield at this point to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. I have been very patient, and the
gentleman has interrupted every statement I have made in the last 2
weeks. I would ask for the gentleman's consideration. At the end of a
debate it is often considered etiquette to let both sides express their
perspective uninterrupted.
I would ask the Chair to be allowed to continue and not to have this
time counted against me.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. Riggs]. The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. LEACH. I would also like to address the issue of compassion.
Sometimes it is argued that to have more numbers is extremely
compassionate. This side has been accused in this debate earlier of
being steely.
The fact of the matter is it can be more compassionate to have more
economic growth. There can be philosophical differences that can be
meted out on various issues at various points in time. But this side is
proceeding under the obligation to be more constrained, to operate
within budget agreements, to operate in coordination with the
administration under a belief that to increase spending would be
uncompassionate, not compassionate.
Finally, let me just say that in my view the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Lazio] has brought to this floor a signally reform-oriented bill
that will establish him as one of the great architects of a new housing
approach, and I think this entire House should give the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Lazio] a great deal of credit.
In this regard, I would also commend the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Kennedy] for bringing out an amendment that from the other side's
perspective I think is quite credible. I would hope our side would not
be persuaded by it.
In this regard, though, I would ask the other side to recognize that
this committee has brought out a number 100 percent identical with the
administration's request, general precepts largely in symmetry with the
administration's request. In that process I would hope that on final
passage the other side would give this committee the benefit of the
doubt in working with the administration, in coming out with the
precise budget numbers. If the committee works with the administration
and then is voted against, it is very awkward for Congress to proceed
on a reasonable basis.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds
to respond.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out to the gentleman that
while he has been showing such great leadership in terms of allowing
the housing budget to be cut back, we have not seen that amongst a lot
of other chairmen in his party. Other chairmen in his party come in
here and request $14 billion more in the defense bill than the Joint
Chiefs of Staff required. Not a single penny came out of any of the
funds that went to any of the big corporations in America. Eighty
percent of the budget cuts which came out of his party affected the
very poor and that is who is affected by this bill. That is a shame on
this Congress, it is a shame on the gentleman, and it is a shame on the
administration that they have not come in with more money for housing.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach].
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I would only respond briefly. I think
perspective has to be applied. The gentleman is correct that a year ago
the budget came in less than the prior year. But this budget is
precisely the same as the prior year, precisely the same as the
administration has requested.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds.
This year's is the same as last year's which was cut by $8 billion.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Gonzalez], the former chairman of the committee.
Mr. GONZALEZ. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I have a much longer perspective on housing problems
than most of my colleagues. As a younger man, I helped develop the
first public housing in San Antonio. Today there are thousands of
people living in San Antonio, housed in safe, decent, affordable public
housing.
My colleagues on the Republican side have drawn a grotesquely
distorted picture of public housing in America today.
The truth is that the majority of public housing is safe, it is
decent, and it is well-run. Are there problems? Of course there are.
But I say to my colleagues that our cities will not be made better by
excluding poor families from public housing. The truth is that
excluding the poorest from public housing only means that they will
live in the meanest neighborhoods, on the meanest streets. To pretend
that we are solving the problems of public housing by reinventing
Hell's Kitchen is obviously very foolish.
What this bill does is to solve the financial problems of the local
housing agencies by encouraging them to get rid of the poorest of the
tenants as rapidly as possible, by a variety of means: excluding them
from admission in the first place, or making it easier to get rid of
them if they are already there.
I say to my colleagues that in the meanest and most miserable of
circumstances, people have pride. They want dignity and they certainly
want a better life.
In San Antonio, one of the most common types of tenements was a
wooden, tin-roof lean-to in the form of a square with an open area in
the center. Around that courtyard would be single rooms. The only water
was a common tap in the courtyard. There might be only one pit privy
serving 50 or more people. It was squalid, unhealthy, disgraceful, and
I hate to even recall those episodes. However, that was the only thing
affordable.
This is the kind of slum that public housing helped to eradicate. I
say to my colleagues that the worst public housing in my city is
better, it is cleaner, and it is safer than those that we called
corrals, for this is what they were called.
A few years ago, I visited farm worker housing all over America, and
some of it was worse than a chicken coop--two of the places I visited
had been built to house Nazi prisoners of war. The people who live in
such places are not lazy or shiftless, as my Republican friends seem to
think. These are in fact people who look desperately for work, and who
work desperately hard. One of them cried to me: ``Mr. Gonzalez, I am so
ashamed. We do not want to live this way, but this is all we can do.''
My friends, the people who live in the worst of public housing do not
want to live that way, either. Their choice is to accept what they
have, or to go to conditions that are even worse.
The solution to public housing problems is not to throw out the poor,
but to build decent housing.
The substitute offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts makes
sense. It tries to do the best possible for the greatest possible
number.
The substitutes recognizes and rewards work, so that residents of
public housing will be able to keep more of what they earn.
The substitute improves crime control programs in public housing, and
it allows local housing agencies greater flexibility, while at the same
time demanding greater accountability from them.
I remind you: in my city, the very worst of public housing is better
than the conditions which that housing replaced. If we want to solve
the social problems of the poor, we have
[[Page H2636]]
to provide opportunities, and not merely demand that the victims heal
themselves.
Support the substitute. It makes sense, and it works better. Before
you vote for this bill, think about the people I know, who live in tin
sheds with dirt floors and no kitchen or plumbing, and who work hard--
and who feel shamed, because they feel the scorn of those who say:
``they deserve their fate.'' My friends, there but for the grace of
God, you would be.
Vote for the substitute.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, just before yielding to the
gentleman from Nebraska, if I can yield myself 15 seconds and just
note, it is very curious in talking about dollars that just 2 weeks
ago, over $5 billion of unspent money was uncovered hidden under rocks
over at HUD that could have been spent to deal with some of these
issues. The issue here is not just money, it is about management, it is
about integrity.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr.
Bereuter], a distinguished member of the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services.
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1400
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thought it might be helpful to explain
the kind of reforms that are not contained in the Kennedy substitute. I
want to go over those major reforms that are in the legislation but not
in the Kennedy substitute.
The Kennedy substitute does not provide for family rent choice. It
does not target fungibility between public housing and choice-based
programs. It does not provide for the home rule flexibility grant
option which we have in title IV. It does not include the accreditation
board. It is controversial, but the House has spoken on that issue. It
does not provide the Traficant CDBG antipiracy and regional cooperation
provisions. It does not include the Jackson-Lee amendment to section 3
regarding resident employment. It does not require consultation with
affected areas in settlement of litigation. It does not require the
Klink-Doyle consultation with local governments' requirement regarding
the building of new public housing. It does not provide for block grant
provisions for small PHAs. It does not have improvements in the least
in grievance compromise. It does not include technical corrections to
legal alien provisions governing public housing. It does not include
the prohibition of national occupancy standards. Those occupancy
standards, I would suggest, should be a matter of local decisions,
local regulations or at most, State law.
Now these are the very important reform elements that are contained
in H.R. 2 but which are not contained in the Kennedy substitute. I
think they are very important. I think, therefore, these reforms are
very necessary for public housing authorities and for the residents
that live in them and for the people that attempt to run our public
housing agencies and for the governing bodies in those jurisdictions.
Mr. Chairman, we should reject the Kennedy substitute and support the
passage of the legislation.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], my good friend.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, let me start by saying that
we have never postured this as a choice between just the worst possible
bill in the world and the status quo. It was my colleagues on the other
side who did that. This bill is marginally better than it was last
year, and I am going to vote against it because it just has some
terrible provisions in it, even though some of the things in it are
good.
We should support the substitute, the Kennedy substitute, because it
is better, but none of us should talk ourselves into believing that
either of these bills is going to solve all the problems of the poor as
some of my colleagues seem to be insinuating their bill is going to do.
These bills are not even going to solve the housing problems of the
poor, much less all of the problems of the poor. But the substitute of
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is light years better
because it puts emphasis on the drug elimination grant program, which
is actually the thing I hear the most when I go home: How can we deal
with drugs in these public housing units? What help can the Federal
Government give us to deal with this problem? We encourage under Mr.
Kennedy's substitute community service, but we do not mandate it. We do
not force people to go out there and work for nothing, which is what
the main bill does, and we encourage an income mix in both public
housing and in the voucher program, and we try to do it in such a way
that we do not end up pitting the very poor against the working poor,
which is what ends up happening under the main bill here.
All of those things are compelling reasons that this Kennedy
substitute is a better alternative than the underlying bill. It is not
a choice between doing nothing, maintaining the status quo, but this is
a better substitute, and we should support it.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] the former Governor
and member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I agree to some degree with the gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] who just spoke. I do not think either of
these bills is going to be the be all and end all in terms of solving
the problems with respect to poor people or people in housing in
general. But we have to look at which one would do better, and I come
down strongly on the side of H.R. 2.
I believe that we should look back to the welfare reform bill last
year in which there were dire predictions by many people on this floor
that this would be a disaster for the poor; if we pass this piece of
legislation, they would be held poor forever and perhaps even poorer,
and there would be all manner of problems in this country.
Now I seem to read more and more articles and hear more and more
people begin to say it has given hope and opportunity to individuals,
and that may not be universally true, and I am sure it is not, and
anecdotally there are probably stories against it. But the same thing
is true, I think, of this housing bill. I have visited housing in
Delaware many, many times, I have spoken to the people running it, and
I frankly think they need more flexibility in terms of how they are
running housing authorities there and across this country. I believe
that a greater mixture of individuals, both by neighborhoods and who
lives in particular areas, is extremely important in trying to help
with the development of the community. I happen not to be opposed to
the community service. I believe that is an opportunity for individuals
and so becomes important as well. I think some of the operating formula
incentives are going to make housing authorities better than they are
now. It is going to make them think a little bit more and, I think,
manage better.
And there are a lot of things that we can talk about here, Mr.
Chairman, as we look at this bill. We go down and compare details to
details, and I give a lot of credit frankly to both sides because I
think people care a lot about housing. But I believe that the bottom
line is that we truly need to introduce change into the housing
programs in this country. They have been without change now for years,
in fact decades, and the time has come to provide that opportunity, and
I think H.R. 2 does that.
And I think that the minority side has been listened to. There are a
lot of amendments in this legislation. Most of them are from the
minority side. Most of them I think are good, by the way. They have
been adopted and are part of the bill.
So for that reason I would encourage support for H.R. 2 by everybody,
once we have taken care of the amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], my good friend.
(Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kennedy substitute,
and it is true, I think, that this bill that the committee has
presented as representing a better product than last year, but I think
there are some fundamental problems with the bill, there are some
fundamental problems.
I have, as an example, when we look at the 3,400 public housing
authorities
[[Page H2637]]
and we talk about a hundred of them having problems, and the fact is
that HUD, we wanted HUD to reassert itself and take more control of the
public housing authority. But what this bill does is to block grant,
send a lot of money back to the same public housing authorities, and as
if that were not enough, they have had a lot of autonomy and they have
sometimes failed, but most of them have been pretty good.
But if that were not enough, we are sending back a lot more
requirements. Because they have trouble running the housing, doing
income verification and all the other problems we are saying, and in
addition to that we are going to put in place a mandatory community
service program. As my colleagues know, the fact is we passed welfare
reform. I happen to be someone that voted for it. I think there are a
lot of problems with the legal immigrants and some other issues with
it, but the fact is we do not have to reinvent it in the housing bill,
and we sure do not have to give that responsibility to those public
housing authorities to run a whole program on community service.
Mr. Chairman, it does not make any sense, just like it does not make
any sense, we have got one HUD, we do not need an accreditation board,
we do not need a two-headed HUD. One is enough. But if my colleagues
want someone to compete up there, to be fighting and disputing it, that
is a problem.
How about income verification? Do we need to raise the incomes in
public housing? The average income for a family now is about $6,700. I
point out to my subcommittee chairman that the minimum wage pays about
10 grand a year, but this bill does not go just to 17 percent of
median, which is $6,500; it goes up to 80 percent. And what we are
saying, if our colleagues are worried about minimum wage, that is
closer to 25 percent of median than 80. Eighty percent is 2\1/2\ times
the poverty rate. In some communities that is $40,000. So check the
numbers, look at what is being done.
Mr. Chairman, I think that if that is what our colleagues want to do
is deal with those in minimum wage and to provide working poor with
housing, then we have to deal with it. But we have 16 million people in
this country; 16 million families, pardon me, that qualify for public
housing, we got about 4 million units. And so we have to differentiate
in how we are going to do this. Do they need more flexibility? Do we
need to deal with one to one? Yes.
But the Kennedy approach is the right approach. We do not need
another HUD. We do not need another reinvention of welfare reform and
another job for the public housing authorities. We need to keep HUD in
charge and hold them accountable, talk about money under rocks that
they found. I will tell my colleagues, go over to the Defense
Department and they will find a lot more money under rocks. But the
fact is if they are going to reach in and take that money back when
trying to hold people accountable in terms of how to use it and then
complain about the fact that they are doing that, and they are going to
take and spend it, I will tell my colleagues that we are going to end
up short when we go to reauthorize the section 8 programs or when we
reauthorize some of the other programs.
So I think the Kennedy substitute is the best option we have. I
appreciate the fact that the chairman has tried to work through some of
these issues, but we have not got there. So I think we better vote for
the Kennedy substitute today.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention in response to the comments of
the gentleman from Minnesota that were completely accurate, we are
talking about the family with two minimum wage jobs. The gentleman, I
think, was referring to families with one minimum wage job, and people
with two minimum wage jobs, a family where a husband and wife working
at minimum wage, would effectively be shut out of vouchers under this
substitute.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Baker], a distinguished member of the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services.
Mr. BAKER. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding this time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, this is indeed a pivotal moment for us. With the
consideration of the Kennedy substitute, Members can vote to support it
and fight to cling onto what simply has not worked.
There are, in fact, public housing authorities around the country who
have used appropriate management skills, and there are public housing
units which are well kept, but unfortunately for the vast numbers of
people who must live in the very large urban-centered housing
authorities of this country, conditions are terrible, and the Kennedy
substitute in my opinion will do nothing, if anything at all, to
rectify that problem.
Mr. Chairman, if we are able to defeat the Kennedy substitute and
move then to final passage in the adoption of the proposal as put
forward by the chairman of the subcommittee, amended by 27 amendments
from the Democrat side, we will make a significant new approach to
public housing in this country. We will say to individuals who do not
choose to be there most of the time:
``We're going to help you, but we're going to help you for a while,
and we're going to ask you in return for that help to improve your own
circumstance in life, get out and try to find work in the community,
volunteer as it may be, to learn job skills, people skills. You may
even find a job that pays you money while you are out doing this
volunteer work''; because taxpayers in this country are saying, ``We
don't object to helping people who truly are in need. We will extend a
hand to someone who is injured, who is unemployed, who has found
difficult times with his wife and family, who wants to help themselves.
But we are saying that public housing in this Nation should not become
a retirement community for people who will not try for themselves or
their own families.''
This is a pivotal change. It is an important change. We cannot
continue to pour billions of dollars into programs with 40 years of
experience which have proven to fail and, more importantly, take more
than decent living conditions away from people. They take their hope,
their vision, their opportunity for a future because all they see is
poverty. They do not see working dads or moms at home with kids or even
businesses at their front door. They see drug dealers, broken-down
apartment buildings and no hope, where the police are scared to come.
This is a pivotal decision. It is critical to our Nation's future to
give back to the working poor and the poor of this country the belief
that if they try, we will help them, and that there is a price to pay
if they do not make the effort for their own family. This is an
integral part of our overall social services reform, where last year a
majority of the Democrats in an almost unanimous Republican vote voted
to impose work requirements of 20 hours a week for those who receive
social services, soon to go to 80 hours a month, then to 100 hours a
month and to increase thereafter.
Mr. Chairman, it is not a new concept, it is not difficult, we know
it works, and today we will make the change.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 second
to respond.
Mr. Chairman, first I just want to make certain that people
understand that in this bill, in the Kennedy alternative, we have
provisions that say if two individuals working in the same family, both
of them earn minimum wage, they are eligible for public housing. Check
the figures. They earn $25,000 a year, check the figures. In almost
every major American city they, in fact, qualify for the public housing
targeting amendments that we have today.
My concern is not those individuals in terms of public housing. We
ought to have home ownership programs. They can afford it. We ought to
get them the homes they need.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms.
Kilpatrick].
{time} 1415
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], our ranking member, for yielding to me as
we continue our debate on H.R. 2.
[[Page H2638]]
I rise in support of the Kennedy substitute. As was mentioned
earlier, in 1937, then Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the President of this
great country, signed into law the Public Housing Act. This bill, H.R.
2 before us, will be a total repeal of that act.
What is needed then and is needed today: housing for the least of
these. The Kennedy substitute will allow more people to have homes,
more children to live in homes. H.R. 2, in its original version, will
increase the homeless population in America.
There are 650 laws that are affected by this H.R. 2 implementation,
if it passes on this floor today. Someone mentioned earlier two minimum
wage jobs. Is that what we want in America, two minimum wage jobs for
working families? One cannot live on minimum wage. What people want to
do is work in good-paying jobs and to take care of their families.
There are over 16 million people who qualify to live in public
housing because they are in that poverty scene and want to get out. We
have only 4 million public housing units. So let us not stand here and
say how great it is to live in public housing. Most people, including
all of us, want better housing than that.
The Kennedy substitute addresses those concerns. It does allow for
people who find themselves in poverty. Decent, adequate housing will
not increase the homeless population and will allow people to look for
work. We need to be talking about work in this legislature. How do you
find good-paying jobs for people so that they can work and take care of
their families? The Kennedy substitute best meets that.
As was said earlier, this is not a panacea. There is still much work
to be done in America, much work to be done in this Congress. Good-
paying jobs are what we need, and quality education so people can rise
to the level to take care of themselves and live in fine housing. I
urge my colleagues to support the Kennedy substitute.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Montana [Mr. Hill].
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Lazio] for yielding me this time.
I rise to express my strong support for H.R. 2, and I think when we
talk about the substitute we have to think about what is the problem
that we are trying to address in this legislation. The first problem,
the most apparent problem is that we have had 20 years of misguided
policy that has focused on a principle of providing housing and housing
alone for the poorest of the poor. The result of that has been
destroyed neighborhoods. These are neighborhoods that often do not have
stores, they often do not have banks, they generally do not have
employers. These are neighborhoods without hope and these are
neighborhoods without opportunity.
H.R. 2 is about more than providing housing. It is about creating
healthy neighborhoods. It is about creating healthy communities.
The Kennedy substitute stops doing the worst, but the problem with it
is that it is incomplete. It does not have a vision for the future. It
does not create a mechanism, it does not allow for the flexibility for
real change in those neighborhoods. It is like comparing a passive
approach with the active approach that is engaged in H.R. 2.
As I say, it is not that it is bad, it is just that it is incomplete
because it does nothing to change this culture of dependency. The
Kennedy substitute does nothing to ask residents to give something back
to their community. It does nothing to create mixed income communities.
It does nothing to create opportunity in those communities, as well.
Simply speaking, the Kennedy substitute is short on vision, it is short
on hope, and it is short on opportunity.
We have a clear choice on this vote. If we vote down the Kennedy
substitute and vote for H.R. 2, we are going to create more hope and
opportunity in our neighborhoods. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 10
seconds to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson], my good friend
who did such a great job on this debate.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let me first congratulate the
chairman of the subcommittee, [Mr. Lazio], who I genuinely believe has
made sincere efforts to reform public housing in this country. I also
want to congratulate our ranking member [Mr. Kennedy] for his sincere
efforts to reform public housing in this Nation, as well.
Mr. Chairman, our position, however, it occurs to me, is to determine
who is sincerely right and who is sincerely wrong. How do we determine,
Mr. Chairman, who is right and who is wrong? There is only one standard
for which we should implore when we vote on H.R. 2, to determine who is
right and who is wrong, and that is the ``do unto others as we would
have them do unto us'' standard.
Mr. Chairman, just no Member of Congress, all of us who receive 100
percent of our paychecks from the public, is being asked to give 8
hours of our time per month in exchange for the very real public
benefit that we receive; just not one of us who receives a mortgage
deduction or any Federal benefit, including mining rights, including
farm subsidies or corporate welfare. We tried yesterday in committee to
attach to the Import-Export Bank legislation an 8-hour mandatory
community service, since it is corporate welfare for corporations doing
risky business in other parts of our country. Just no one.
We have tried to attach it to other forms of corporate welfare, and
yet the majority consistently rejects adding 8 hours of community
service in exchange for their Federal benefit to any particular piece
of legislation that comes before this Congress. Defense appropriations,
it will be coming up shortly, and at no point in time will we ever
mandate of them voluntarism.
Only in this bill for the first time, to the best of my knowledge,
since 1865, only in this bill for the first time since 1865 do we treat
a different set of Americans any different than we have ever treated
another group of Americans.
Mr. Chairman, vote for the Kennedy substitute and against this
draconian bill.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley].
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I do have to take a moment to congratulate
the chairman of the subcommittee, [Mr. Lazio] for a phenomenal job in
trying to reform the public housing policies of this Nation.
A lot of times we have votes on this floor that are partisan, but I
can assure my colleagues on this bill, this is a bipartisan effort. Out
of 37 amendments adopted at the committee's markup, 29 were from the
minority. So clearly, we were willing to negotiate, debate, and prevent
this bill from being simply labeled a partisan attack on others.
Clearly, when we have been able to watch communities work on housing
initiatives directed at improving people's lives, they have largely
been successful. The Federal Government would rather trap people in
housing that few Members in this Chamber would dare live in, or visit.
The idea of the bill is to give incentives and opportunities. The
Kennedy substitute encourages residents to contribute 8 hours a month.
Yes, we require it. We do not think anything is wrong in requiring
people to perform a community service when they have been given
something.
Now, I clearly, and Members of Congress, spend numerous hours in our
communities helping the Red Cross, American Cancer Society, Habitat for
Humanity, AIDS coalitions, and other groups. Many, many hours we donate
and volunteer, even though we are paid by Federal taxpayers.
Clearly in this bill we are trying to give people a part of the
American dream, not trap them in rental housing where they cannot grow
and develop strong family commitments and bonds. We see in this bill,
while not a perfect bill, a chance to reinvigorate inner cities, to
give people hope and opportunity, to give them something to strive for
and, yes, ask them to participate in voluntarism.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for
yielding who I have enjoyed participating with on this debate over the
course of the last 3 weeks.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that there is a distinction
that
[[Page H2639]]
should be drawn between our voluntarism because it is innovating from
our own will or self-reliance, without coercion and threatening one's
eviction, without compensation in exchange for what we are terming a
volunteer effort. There is a distinction that should be drawn between
mandatory voluntarism and one that is not mandatory.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the one thing I am
thrilled about in the bill is that we create so many carve-outs that if
someone is in a vocational or technical program, going to school, if
they are caring for an aged parent, if you will, if they are sick
themselves, there are so many carve-outs that only those that choose to
stay home and do nothing are required then to commit 8 hours of
service. That is the beauty of this bill, is that we are not telling
people if they are physically incapable of working that they have to
somehow go clean up streets or clean graffiti off walls.
When I go home to my district and talk to my constituents, many of
them earning meager wages, many of them who could qualify for public
housing, when I ask them if it is something so onerous to ask them for
give 8 hours of service for that housing, they say, ``Mark, that is
simple. That is easy. You should do it.''
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my
good friend, the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez].
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, the Republican majority claims that H.R.
2 is reform. Tearing down an essential program is not reform. I wonder
if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle understand the kind of
human misery that their reform will cause.
If they are serious about fixing public housing, they must do so
without abandoning the very poor. Congress must ensure that these
families still have a decent and affordable place to call home. The
problem with the Republican majority is that when something goes wrong
and does not work, they want to dismantle it. Well, the American public
thinks that this institution does not work. Are we going to dismantle
it, too?
Through reasonable targeting requirements, the Democratic substitute
continues assisting the most disadvantaged households, while increasing
the availability of public housing to the working poor. H.R. 2 will
simply deny millions of women and their children shelter.
What is more ironic, the Republicans are fond of claiming that H.R. 2
promotes self-sufficiency. Be honest. How can we expect a family to
achieve stability if parents are forced to work without pay? The
Kennedy substitute replaces enforced labor with provisions that
encourage work, giving families a true chance to achieve the American
dream.
Mr. Chairman, instead of addressing the real needs of real families,
H.R. 2 offers despair and misery. I urge all of my colleagues to
support the Kennedy substitute and guard our commitment to safe and
affordable housing.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I would just note that we are in the process of trying to overhaul
public housing for the first time, at least in any significant sense,
in over 60 years; and if we prove in this House that we cannot correct
this problem, if we establish that we will continue to look the other
way when we see failure, then we certainly will present an opportunity
for those people who believe that the Federal partnership in low-
income housing is one that is futile to support.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard].
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Kennedy substitute and in strong opposition to H.R. 2.
H.R. 2 is an unprecedented and indefensible retreat from the Federal
Government's 60-year commitment to those in greatest need of housing
assistance, our Nation's poor. Although proponents argue that the bill
promotes local flexibility in the administration of public housing
programs, that flexibility is achieved at too high a human cost.
Experts agree that access to affordable housing is the No. 1 problem
confronting needy families, yet H.R. 2 will allow housing authorities
to replace poor families with those whose incomes are as high as
$40,000 a year in some parts of the country.
{time} 1430
This will remove a critical safety net for tens of thousands of poor
families well into the next millennium as they seek to move from
welfare to work. As a result, their only options are to resort to
dilapidated, substandard housing, if they can find it, or to join the
growing ranks of the homeless. This is a new American tragedy in the
making.
The Democratic substitute, however, reforms the public housing system
without punishing those in greatest need of our help. It offers local
flexibility without sacrificing accountability, and it provides
sensible, workable reforms to public housing programs, and most
importantly, it reinstates the Brooke amendment that ensures that poor
families receive a fair share of housing assistance.
On behalf of poor and working families throughout the Nation, I urge
my colleagues to support the Kennedy substitute.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], originally from my State.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the claims being made on
behalf of the majority's bill were valid, I would support it. If
rhetoric could cure poverty after this debate, there would not be a
poor person left anywhere in public housing. But this bill that the
majority has brought forward has literally not one thing in it that
helps anyone leave poverty, get a job, or improve herself.
It does require you, if you live in public housing, to work 8 hours a
month, and despite what was said earlier, inaccurately, even if you are
the primary caregiver of someone unable to take care of himself or
herself. Someone got carried away and thought the amendment of the
gentleman from Illinois had been adopted, but it was not.
So what we say is that if you are a poor person living in public
housing and you are even the caregiver to someone, you still have to do
the 8 hours a month, even if the housing authority believes that given
the conditions in which you live, it really would not be terribly
useful.
It says you have to sign a contract promising that some day you will
be a richer person. It does not provide you with a single tool to do
that. The major way this bill improves public housing is by reducing
the number of very poor people in it. I grant that point.
If our unit of worth is an entity known as the public housing
authority and if we are measuring not the good we have done for
humanity, not the extent to which we have alleviated social problems,
not the extent to which we have dealt with our fellow citizens who are
deeply embedded in poverty, but if the measure is what does the housing
authority look like and what is the average in that housing authority,
then you have made it better. But you have made it better at the cost
of excluding the poorest people, some of them, from this effort.
If we wanted to really go after the problems in public housing, we
would begin by solving the number one problem: inadequate resources.
For decades we have caused a problem by trying to take care of the poor
too cheaply. We do not alleviate that from the standpoint of humane
goals by simply reducing the number of poor people we are trying to
help.
My friend, the gentleman from Delaware, said, well, let us look at
the welfare bill. We made predictions about the welfare bill that were
not coming true. Has he been in some other country for the past month?
My recollection is that the first part of the welfare bill that is
taking effect, that dealing with legal immigrants, part of the welfare
bill that I proudly voted against, is causing such havoc and such pain
that the bipartisan leadership agreement substantially repeals that
part of the welfare bill.
How can anyone talk about the great success of the welfare bill and
ignore the fact, remember, the AFDC part, that is a 5-year time limit.
That has not gone into effect yet. But the legal
[[Page H2640]]
immigrant parts have been widely considered to be such a disaster that
billions of dollars of the bipartisan agreement are going to alleviate
that mistake. This is a similar mistake: Resolve the problem by simply
legislating the people out of existence, as far as we are concerned.
That is not worthy of this House.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], the chairman of the
subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me. I had not intended to speak on this particular bill until I saw my
friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, putting forth some
information with regard to the welfare reform bill.
I might tell the gentleman that the welfare reform bill has probably
been the most single successful piece of legislation that has passed
this Congress in decades. Thousands of people, hundreds of thousands of
people, are leaving the welfare rolls. Unfortunately, so many of our
liberal legislators could not really see that these people had a self-
worth, and really all they needed was a little bit of a shove and
incentive to go out and do the right thing, and to find a job. We have
found that nowhere in our history have we seen the rolls fall as they
have, no matter what the prosperity, as they have over the last year
and a half. It is absolutely phenomenal.
He says the limitation has not gone into effect. People know that the
limitation is in effect in many of the States who are far ahead of the
curve. His own State of Massachusetts, as well as Wisconsin and
Michigan and Indiana, Delaware, these States have been very progressive
in welfare reform, and their rolls, the people on welfare, have dropped
considerably.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to have faith in the poor of this country.
Just because somebody is poor does not mean that that person is not out
there looking for a job. The question is, is welfare reform working. Of
course it is working. I do not see how anybody can stand in this
Chamber and say it is not working, because it is.
I would say to my friend, have more faith in the poor of this
country. Just because someone is poor does not mean that they do not
care about their family, they do not care about their future, and there
are so many people out there that are finding that there is a real
future out there. They can share in the American dream.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to
point out that the gentleman has just eloquently refuted something I
never said. I was talking in fact explicitly not about AFDC recipients,
because I do not believe that a bill that passed less than a year ago
and has not gone into effect yet is the major factor affecting them.
I was talking, as the gentleman quite understandably ignored, about
the parts of his bill that I believe victimize legal immigrants, and
which contrary to his views, is being repudiated by the Republican
leadership and the President. The gentleman totally misstated my
remarks.
Mr. SHAW. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the
gentleman, the SSI rolls among noncitizens was escalating at roughly 10
times the speed it was for citizens. I would also tell the gentleman
that of money spent on the elderly, over 51 percent was being spent on
noncitizens.
I would also tell the gentleman that we have reached an accommodation
on SSI, and it is my intention to put before my committee a grandfather
provision which will be brought to the floor as part of the budget
agreement, as the implementation of the budget agreement, that will
grandfather in all of those that were here on August 22, 1996.
So from that standpoint, we are solving the problem of both the
escalating nature of SSI for noncitizens, which was totally out of
control, and we are then showing compassion for the people that were
here.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida
finally addresses the point I was making, as opposed to a point I never
made.
What he is acknowledging, of course, is that this grandfathering, et
cetera, that he is talking about, it is a substantial repeal of his
bill. The bill he is so proud of did damage to the legal immigrants,
and the budget agreement, and he is talking about it, is undoing some
of what he did to the legal immigrants in the welfare bill.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Kelly], a member of the
committee.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Kennedy
substitute for H.R. 2, the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act.
With H.R. 2 we are stepping away from old thinking. We are ending the
administration's passive approach to problems, and we are going to give
communities the power to build strong neighborhoods. It is with this
active approach that we can nurture our communities.
The Kennedy substitute does nothing to change the culture of
dependency of many who live in public housing, nothing. We can no
longer throw large chunks of money at bloated, poorly functioning
administrations that produce results that are mediocre, at best. These
funds that come down from these administrations have so many strings
attached that there is no flexibility to address the different problems
that public housing authorities face across the country.
I understand in one of my sick public housing authorities we had a
cow butchered in a bathtub. We have to end this kind of public housing
administration. One-size-fits-all has to end. We have to allow for a
new synergy to be created. That is what H.R. 2 does. That is what the
Kennedy substitute seeks to stop.
I would like to emphasize the goals we are moving forward with in
H.R. 2. They are simple: Personal responsibility that ends with a
mutual obligation between the provider and the recipient, removal of
disincentives to work and retention of protections for the residents,
and empowerment of the individual and family through the choices that I
believe will lead them to economic independence and the pursuit of
their own American dream.
I would like to emphasize that everyone has the same shared
objective: Clean, safe, affordable housing that empowers the have-nots
in our society to become people who can realize their own American
dream. That is what we are going to do here with H.R. 2. This is what
we will be voting for when we vote against the Kennedy substitute.
I therefore urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting against
the Kennedy substitute, that will do nothing for America's communities.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my
good friend, the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Democratic
substitute to H.R. 2 offered by our colleague, the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. I want Members to know I do not come to
this as some partisan reflex. The last time around I voted for the same
bill that was passed in the last Congress.
I have been listening very carefully to this bill, hoping, hoping
there was some compelling reason to vote for this bill. Unfortunately,
there is not. This bill has good intentions, and many of the things
that are there I support, but it goes too far. It goes too far in
denying the poorest of the poor the opportunity to have public housing.
It certainly goes too far in having what we call the fungible funding.
I think the Kennedy substitute is not status quo. It recognizes the
problem but it commits itself to the poorest of the poor.
Further, I want to commend and support the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Lazio] in his effort for this, and just would make a comment that
neither his bill nor the Democratic substitute has anything in it about
rural housing. I would be remiss not to tell the Members, as I stand
talking about public housing, and to have this body of Congress ignore
the vast need of rural housing.
[[Page H2641]]
Mr. Chairman, I rise today, in support of the Democratic substitute
to H.R. 2, offered by our colleague Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Chairman, I did not come to this decision through impulse, nor
did I come to this decision simply by partisan reflex. On the contrary,
Mr. Chairman, over the course of the last several days, I have listened
closely and intently as this body has vigorously debated the various
provisions of H.R. 2--hoping Mr. Chairman--hoping to hear some
compelling reasons to vote in favor of the bill.
I believe as do many if not most of my colleagues, that the current
state of our Nation's public housing system has fallen into disrepair
and neglect. Federal housing policies which have been promulgated over
the last decades, have, despite their good intentions, in many
instances worked to trap the poorest among us in isolated pockets of
poverty, and in some cases contributed to the disintegration of the
family structure, which has in turn led to a drastic increase in the
crime rate in many of our Nation's highest density public housing
projects.
Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I voted in favor of H.R. 2406, the Public
Housing Reform bill that passed the House last Congress, only to fall
prey to bickering between House and Senate Republicans in the
conference committee, because I felt then and continue to feel that
this body must act to stop the catastrophic deterioration in our
Nation's public housing system.
H.R. 2, as advertised by its proponents, portends to address many of
the most outrageous and egregious concerns with the public housing
system that we all share. And, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, to a
certain extent the bill does just this. It radically reshapes public
housing system. H.R. 2 gives greater flexibility to local housing
authorities in setting rents in order to encourage a mix of more
working families among public housing tenants. In addition, the bill
grants local authorities and owners of federally-assisted housing
unprecedented powers to evict drug dealers and criminals, while also
empowering them with greater screening powers to prevent dangerous
individuals with criminal pasts from becoming residents.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, while H.R. 2 does achieve some laudable
objectives--in many aspects, H.R. 2 goes too far in reshaping the
Nation's public housing system and gives too much autonomy and
authority to local housing authorities.
In particular, I believe that the income targeting provisions of H.R.
2 are so broad as to constitute a complete and total shift away from
the fundamental mission of public housing--namely to provide safe,
decent, and affordable housing to the poorest among us.
The targeting provisions in H.R. 2, as I understand them, only
require public housing authorities to expend 35 percent of Federal
housing assistance toward those families earning below 30 percent of
the area median income. While this figure is no different than that
which was included in the housing bill that passed the House last
Congress, and is only 5 percent less than the 40 percent required under
the Kennedy substitute, H.R. 2 also carried with it a more deceptive
provision that would for all intents and purposes, remove the Federal
Government's commitment to providing housing for the very poor.
This is the so called fungible income targeting requirement. Under
this provision, local public housing authorities can meet their 35
percent targeting requirement simply by admitting very low-income
families to the choice based housing program, rather than admitting
them into housing units.
It is conceivable therefore, that under this provision, the Nation's
permanent housing stock would be closed to some of the poorest families
in the country--many of them elderly and disabled. Instead of being
placed in a housing unit, many of these families would be forced to
search the section 8 housing market in areas which may be unfamiliar to
them, or in locations where mass transit resources and job
opportunities are sparse. Or even worse, Mr. Chairman, the fungible
income targeting requirements in the bill, may force some families into
the streets.
While I agree with the goal of attracting more of the working poor
into the public housing system, I believe that the targeting provisions
included in H.R. 2 are unnecessarily drastic and requires too little of
local public housing authorities in regards to assisting low-income
families.
The Democratic substitute which we are debating, achieves the same
objectives of creating a better income mix in public housing--which
creates more stable and safe communities--without completely disavowing
our Nation's commitment to the very poor. The income targeting
provisions in the Democratic substitute are 5 percent deeper than that
in H.R. 2, requiring local public housing authorities to dedicate 40
percent of their permanent public housing stock to those individuals
and families that earn below 30 percent of the area median income. In
addition, 90 percent of available housing units would be reserved for
families below 60 percent of area median income.
Most importantly, however, the substitute, would protect very low-
income families by removing the fungible income targeting requirements
in H.R. 2. Under the substitute, local housing authorities, could not
meet their income targets for low-income families simply by admitting
these families to the choice-based housing program.
Mr. Chairman, the Democratic substitute, represents real reform to
our Nation's public housing system. It addresses many of the most
egregious and outrageous abuses that are allowed to occur under our
present housing laws.
Like, H.R. 2, Mr. Chairman, the Democratic substitute, eliminates
obsolete and burdensome Federal regulations such as the ``take-one-
take-all'' requirements on landlords and the ``endless lease''
provisions in current law--giving greater flexibility and automony to
the local housing authorities. Moreover, the substitute would help to
create more stable public housing communities by allowing housing
authorities to deny housing assistance to drug and alcohol abusers,
while at the same moderately changing the income targeting provisions
to allow for a greater number of working poor to have access to public
housing resources.
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, the Democratic substitute represents a
clear departure from the current law guiding our public housing system.
However, in recognizing the need for local public housing authorities
to exercise greater flexibility and autonomy in addressing the
particular needs of the communities for which they serve, the
substitute maintains the fundamental mission of public housing--namely
to assist the very poorest families among us.
Last Congress, Mr. Chairman, I voted in favor of H.R. 2406--the
precursor to H.R. 2--because it was the only viable piece of
legislation which corrected some of the most egregious shortcomings of
the public housing system.
While I commend Mr. Lazio for his genuine efforts to address many of
the concerns that we all share, today I stand in support of the
Democratic substitute to H.R. 2 because it too represents real reform
and it too changes the culture and focus of our public housing system.
However, it does this while protecting the most vulnerable families
among us.
Accordingly, I urge all of my colleagues to support the Democratic
substitute to H.R. 2.
Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, although I understand the subcommittee
chairman's decision to focus on public housing as a whole, I would be
remiss if I did not state my disappointment that neither the substitute
nor H.R. 2 includes provisions addressing the housing needs and
concerns of rural America.
As I am certain that the chairman is aware, rural areas have some of
the highest rates of poverty and more dire housing needs than many
other more urbanized areas in the country. According to the 1990
census, there were more than 7.6 million people with incomes below the
poverty level in rural America. Moreover, census data also indicate
that about 2.8 million rural Americans live in substandard housing.
In county after county of my district of North Carolina, Mr.
Chairman, affordable housing is sparse and the dream of owning a home
is often times unattainable.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that as we conclude the debate on H.R. 2, this
body will begin to look more seriously at the housing needs and
concerns of rural America.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
I first of all want to compliment my good friend, the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Lazio], for the excellent work he and his staff, as well
as the staff on this side of the committee, has done on this bill. I
sometimes felt like I should be calling my cousin-in-law, Arnold
Schwartzeneggar, and telling him to watch Terminator III on the House
floor, because that is what it has felt like from time to time on this
bill.
I do want to just say to everyone listening that I know we have, I
think on both sides of the aisle, tried to make certain we have an open
and honest debate on this issue. There are serious differences. I do
not believe that we ought to be abandoning the very poor in pursuit of
solving our housing problems in this country.
We do have housing problems. We can continue to protect the poor. We
can do it within the context of making the changes in public housing
policy which will avoid the mistakes of the past, the huge
monstrosities where we warehouse the poor, and allow us to have an
enlightened view of how we house our vulnerable people into the future
of this country.
[[Page H2642]]
{time} 1445
I look forward to working with the chairman as we get to a
conference.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
I want to return the compliment to the gentleman from Massachusetts
and thank him certainly for the working relationship that we have had
through the committee process and through markup and finally on the
floor of this House.
In the 3 long weeks we have been debating this bill and almost 60
amendments that have been heard, we have been able to dispose of those
amendments, not all, I am sure, to the satisfaction of the gentleman
from Massachusetts, but at any rate in a way that I think preserves the
dignity of this body and this House.
We do have differences. We have differences in perspective. We have
differences as to how much we trust local authorities, how much
flexibility we ought to give them, how we ought to treat low income
people.
My friend from Massachusetts has offered an amendment that I believe
would shut out working-class families, would shut out a husband and
wife who happen to have low, minimum wage jobs from the possibility of
receiving a rental voucher.
We believe in local flexibility. We believe in empowerment. We sweep
away the work disincentives that are in current law. I believe under
the gentleman's proposition, those work disincentives continue to exist
as long as we tie rent to income and do not permit, which we do under
H.R. 2, we permit tenants to make that choice, to go to a flat rent so
that they work longer, work harder, get a better job. They can keep the
fruits of that labor.
We want to empower people to do that. We want to reward work. We want
to transform communities. And we know in the end that we cannot
legislate an end to poverty. That will only happen if we create the
right set of incentives, the right rules so that local individuals and
local communities, once empowered, can begin to transform themselves.
That is where the change will take place, because make no mistake
about it, H.R. 2 is not just about shelter. It is about creating
environments where poverty can be successfully addressed, and it will
be only successfully addressed by the people of those same communities.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Democratic
substitute offered by my friend, Joe Kennedy from Massachusetts.
He's been a tenacious advocate for real housing reform, so tenacious
that he's beginning to set a record for the number of times a bill has
been on and off the floor.
Actually, this is a good debate for us to have.
It's a debate about setting priorities, about adopting reform while
protecting people, and about giving hard-pressed working families a
break.
The Kennedy substitute is a reasonable, balanced approach to housing
reform that protects the vulnerable, while giving local housing
authorities the flexibility they need to do their jobs.
By contrast, the Republican bill eliminates most Federal regulations
affecting low-income housing assistance--including provisions that
ensure Federal housing is targeted to those most in need.
H.R. 2 repeals the Housing Act of 1937, and it will push the poorest
tenants into homelessness.
The Democratic substitute streamlines our Nation's housing laws, but
does not repeal them.
It protects seniors and the vulnerable by retaining current law,
limiting rent to 30 percent of your income.
And it encourages local housing authorities to provide mixed income
housing, while preserving assistance to those most in need.
The substitute provides the reforms and flexibility that local
housing authorities need, but it does not contain the unfunded mandates
that are included in the Republican bill.
That's why local housing authorities support the substitute, why the
administration supports it, and why I support it.
I urge my colleagues: Oppose H.R. 2; support the Democratic
substitute.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, we, the Congress, are once again asked to
reenact Federal housing legislation that is unconstitutionally,
philosophically, economically, and practically unsound.
Prior to the Constitution-circumventing New Deal policies of the Fed-
induced Depression era, such redistributionist policies whereby
Government takes money from one citizen to pay the housing costs--or
some other cost--of another was forbidden. Supreme Court Justice Samuel
Chase, in Calder versus Bull, opined that ``a law that takes property
from A and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a
people to intrust a legislature with such powers.'' Yet, this
redistributionary scheme, rather than the exception, has become the
rule as well as the rule of law in this 20th century, special interest
state.
But even setting aside the unconstitutionality of Government's 20th
century housing policy for the moment, such redistributionary schemes
are philosophically bankrupt as well. A right to housing, as espoused
by proponents of this legislation, or a right to more than the fruits
of one's own labor, by definition must deprive some other the right to
keep the fruit of his or her own labor. Moreover, such a right cannot
be a right as it is not enjoyable by all simultaneously. For if each is
entitled by right to more than the fruit of one's own labor, one must
then ask from where this additional production will come. It is this
fallacy that prompted Frederic Bastiat, the brilliant 18th century
political-economist to remark: ``The State is the great fictitious
entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone
else.'' Bastiat understood that Government was an agreement entered
into for the purpose of protecting one's own property rather than the
tool by which individuals could collectively band together to deprive
others of theirs.
The problems with Government housing extends even beyond these not-
so-insignificant barriers. The economic and practical aspects of such a
policy warrant serious scrutiny as well. One must not forget that
individuals respond to incentives and incremental measures moving this
country further in the wrong policy direction must be actively opposed.
There are those in this Congress who concede that there are serious
problems with our Federal housing policy but argue that we must reform
it to correct these problems. By incrementally moving in the right
direction we can look out for those affected--not just the tenants but
the others dependent upon the Government miscreant as well.
This incrementalist approach has not worked in the past and will not
work in the future. This bill will not move us incrementally in the
right direction. The direction in which this legislation will lead us
could be referred to as a continuation of mission creep. An idea for a
small program or expenditure, no matter how deserving or well meaning,
will only feed an ever-growing appetite for more Government money.
This bill will demonstrate yet again the innate nature of a
Government subsidy to grow exponentially. Despite the confident
assurances of flatlining the HUD budget for a few years, Government
subsidized housing will continue to grow. A GAO report points out that
there are an additional $18 billion in FHA insured mortgages at risk.
While not a part of H.R. 2 directly, the liabilities associated with
the subsidized mortgages on the housing projects and other factors
virtually assure it, even if it were not the nature of Government's
quest to sate its ravenous consumption of our money.
The social reformers of the New Deal era persuaded a pliant
Government to address the issue of unemployment and the needs of the
slum dwellers. Presumably, no one bothered to address the
responsibility issue. John Weicher of the Hudson Institute explains
well the logic that brought us the current situation.
The social reformers of that era chose to ignore market forces, human
nature, and the nature of Government. If Government spends enough of
other people's money, Government can change lives. ``We know better for
them than they do--and just how to do it,'' was the condescending
implication.
They claimed that poor tenement housing largely caused the social
ills of the urban dwellers. These so-identified breeding grounds of
crime, delinquency, disease, mental illness, and worse were regarded as
the result of the poor living conditions, not the cause. If Government
could give them decent housing, Government could eliminate these
problems, they dreamed. That dream has become a nightmare for all too
many people--both for the people trapped by the constraints of the
public dole and those forced through taxation to pay for it.
The erstwhile social reformers thought Government could eliminate the
slums, create jobs in a depression and even encourage home ownership.
Through Government, they could realize their dreams. They were wrong.
The United States Housing Act of 1937 established public housing, our
oldest subsidy program, in order to create affordable, Depression-era
housing for those temporarily unemployed or underemployed, eliminate
slums, and increase employment through make-work construction jobs. The
Great Depression has long been over, but its misguided largesse and
Constitution-circumventing redistribution schemes continue. Of course,
we are still paying the deficit--with compound interest--for
[[Page H2643]]
those jobs despite having institutionalized slum life.
The War on Poverty demonstrated the mission creep. In 1965 government
created the Housing and Urban Development [HUD] Agency following the
beginning in 1961 of federally subsidized construction of privately
owned housing projects. Subsidized housing has now mutated into three
forms: public housing, privately owned projects and, section 8
certificates and vouchers for use in privately owned housing. Each of
these three forms of Government-subsidized housing makes up roughly
one-third of the subsidized housing stock.
Of the public housing projects, over 850,000 of the 1.4 million units
were built between 1950 and 1975. Only about 100,000 new units were
added to the public housing stock in the last 10 years. These units are
built entirely with public funds, and the Federal Government pays part
of the cost of operation. Over time, the Federal Government has to pay
to modernize these developments too.
However, the local Public Housing Authorities [PHA's] run the
projects with such ineptitude in so many cases they are literally run
into the ground. Costs to operate the public housing projects are
comparable to private housing, according to HUD numbers, only if one
does not consider the cost of building the units in the first place--as
if the cost of the mortgage on a private housing building should not be
a factor in setting the rent.
The Federal Government then picks up the tab for the so-called
modernization, or rehabilitation, of the projects as they deteriorate.
With this setup, there is no incentive for the local PHA officials to
reinvest the rental income back into the units. As a consequence, the
local PHA does not maintain them sufficiently, and the tenants suffer a
life in substandard housing. Standards that are deemed unacceptable in
private housing are somehow good enough in the Government's eyes for
those on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder.
The privately owned projects also bilk taxpayers on a grand scale,
according to HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo. He lambastes the fact that the
Government is overpaying rents compared to what his department
considers Fair Market Rent. HUD is subsidizing rents of $849 a month in
Chicago neighborhoods where the market rate is only $435 a month;
paying $972 a month in Oakland, CA, against a market rate of $607 a
month; and in Boston, Government is paying $1,023 a month vis-a-vis
$667 monthly in the private market, he says.
Mr. Cuomo attacks these abuses and decries the State of subsidized
housing, but he does not recognize that these abuses are symptomatic of
the system he is trying to preserve. ``For years we have been trying to
grapple with this issue,'' he tells us and dangles promises of huge
future savings if Government tinkers around the edges of an ill-
conceived system that tries to cheat the market, tries to circumvent
human nature, and ignores the nature of Government subsidies.
His current promises are as false as the promises of his
predecessors. One of his successors will 1 day lament the horrible
State of subsidized housing he inherited and will promise grandiose
reforms that will save billions if Government only passes a future
subsidized housing bill.
One of the worst complications of this approach is the builtin
disincentives to proper management. Under a convoluted setup, these
privately owned projects rely on FHA insurance and a Federal subsidy
paycheck to pay for it. Too often, these ill-managed projects
deteriorate so quickly that the units are torn down before they pay for
their own construction. Under Mr. Cuomo's directives, HUD will decide
the market rate concerning its subsidies. The market distortions of the
tax code and FHA insurance make the situation worse.
Vouchers and certificates are the best of the inherently flawed
approaches. About 80 percent of people with vouchers find suitable
housing of their choice--very often at only 40-60 percent of the cost
of less desirable public housing. After enacting certificates in 1974
and vouchers in 1983, about 1.5 million households have been served by
this approach--1.1 million through certificates and 400,000 through
vouchers.
The benefits of the tenant-based approach include the reliance of a
quasi-free market competition with the attendant bonuses of lower
costs, great efficiency, rewards for personal initiative, and
individual choice. Under tenant-based rental assistance, recipients are
less likely to live in concentrated poor urban communities that often
lack basic necessities: safety, good schools, employment opportunities,
access to financial services, and so forth. They have a way out of the
trap of project-based public housing units that have become a way of
life.
Market incentives through tenant choice put the renters in charge of
their housing decisions. They may find the housing of their choice and
even keep the difference between the rent and the voucher if they find
housing for less than their voucher enabled them. This is not the case
with the certificates. Unfortunately, the household remains tied to the
State with the contingent constraints and perverse incentives that this
arrangement implies.
Unfortunately, H.R. 2 does not address these concerns. It leaves
uncertain the ``proper'' approach to subsidizing housing despite the
fanfare of a ``new'' approach. While formally repealing the 1937
housing act, the mentality remains along with the compendium of
problems inherently associated with it.
The bill leaves uncertain whether a ``tenant-based approach'' or a
``project-based approach'' will be instituted. In the Washington
tradition, a compromise is offered. Again, in the Washington tradition,
this bill embraces the worst aspects of both approaches and fuses them
together.
This bill tries to ``target'' their social reforms now. By this
Government's attempts to force social reforms through osmosis by luring
better role models into the modern slums. Perhaps the Ellen Wilson
housing project in Washington, DC, just blocks away from the Capitol,
would reassure us as to the benefits of incrementalism. In a city with
a waiting list of 16,000 people, Government is spending about $186,000
per unit to build subsidized housing instead of spending less per unit
and housing more people.
One would hope that at least such incredible sums are going to the
most needy of the 16,000 people waiting for subsidized housing. Yet
even those earning up to $78,000 a year could qualify. Incremental
social reform is not cost efficient.
The Washington Post wrote on April 24, 1997, that Valley Green, a
Washington, DC, housing project built in early 1960's, was launched
``to house people displaced by `slum clearance,' [and] soon became a
slum itself, poisoned over the decades by a toxic brew of poverty,
rampant vandalism, violent drug dealing, and government neglect * * *.
The resulting wasteland, which stretches across 20 acres of silent
concrete courtyards and rutted city streets, has come to serve in
recent years as a convenient backdrop of politicians looking to cast
blame for decades of despair.''
This story is very indicative. It is one that has been retold far too
many times in too many places. This expenditure has not even provided
decent housing to those Government was trying to help. According to HUD
inspection general reports, up to 80 percent of the units fail
inspections.
It is a story that will be retold again and again if this bill
passes. It is a testimony of the effects of Government-engineered
social reform of housing. One must not forget the lofty goal of slum
elimination of the 1930's that spawned this misadventure. That lofty
goal of the 1960's spawned the dreamily named Valley Green. One can
only wonder what name Government shall bestow upon the next housing
project born under H.R. 2's new legislative regime.
Aside from the simple accounting costs associated with Government
subsidized housing, there are other real costs. Unfortunately even this
simplicity eludes HUD which routinely demonstrates that it is incapable
of understanding basic accounting and accountability. Just this month,
a congressionally instigated investigation of section 8 contract
reserve accounts discovered $5 billion in addition to the $1.6 billion
in excess reserve funds recaptured late last year. I sincerely doubt
that the residents of Valley Green, other housing projects and
taxpayers think this is a well-run program.
Just since HUD was created, Government has appropriated over $572
billion to the agency. Of course, this figure does not include rents
and fees collected by the agency, so that it could be argued that total
funding for public housing has been much higher. HUD is budgeted
annually around $21.7 billion for each of the next 5 years, but the
figure for last year was only $19.4 billion. More money will be wasted.
For fiscal years, 1965-75, the agency's budget authority totaled less
than $40 billion. In other words, Government has spent over half a
trillion dollars of taxpayers' hard-earned money on subsidized housing
in the last 20 years.
Nor has this half a trillion dollars increased the home ownership
rates of Americans. The fourth quarter averages of home ownership
between 1965-74 averaged 64 percent. Despite such Governmental
largesse, fourth quarter rates of home ownership averaged 64 percent
between 1965-96. Certainly HUD has not made a significantly positive
contribution to the goal of home ownership. They will be able to point
to the easily identified few who have been helped at the expense of the
less easily identified many who were negatively affected.
One must not forget that the increased Government expenditures
derived through taxation have stifled the ability of many would-be
homeowners to save for the down payment and purchase the home of their
dreams. Instead, they pay the taxes to bankroll the dreams of the
social reformers, past and present.
[[Page H2644]]
They are paying not only the bills of today but the taxes necessary
to pay for the deficit spending dreamed up by previous social reforms.
There is a real economic cost to these deficits. The distortions to the
free market whereby the most efficient allocations of resources are
made. HUD shows us the alternative--and considered enlightened--path to
allocating resources better. The HUD bureaucracy consumes valuable
resources that are best spent elsewhere. Even the new HUD Secretary
concedes very readily that HUD is inefficient and wasteful. Government
just needs to give it more time and more money, the Secretary pleads.
Of course more time and more money have already cost us too much.
This irresponsible pipe dreaming has contributed to unsound fiscal
and monetary policies and introduced new iterations in the business
cycle. As the market tries to factor in these Government-spending-
induced booms and busts, security against its ravages of higher
unemployment and higher interest rates takes their toll. This added
cost fuels the cycle which exacerbates the problem.
Not only the taxpayers suffer under this approach. The civil rights
of the tenants of subsidized housing are discarded as housing sweeps
violative of the fourth amendment are conducted in the name of a
misdirected war on poverty and lack of affordable housing.
Of course, it is the middle class and working poor who pay the cost
most directly. The rich shelter their money from many income taxes and
have their FICA taxes for Social Security capped. This regressive
Social Security tax takes an unfair toll on the working poor and middle
class. Many more people could afford better housing absent paying for
the inefficiencies of the Government's approach to housing.
H.R. 2 is not the solution to our problems. Rather, it is an
illustration of the creeping mission of more Government for a longer
period of time not fulfilling the dreams of its engineers. This bill is
more of the same incremantalism that began in the 1930's. Despite proof
that it was not working, we are asked to vote again to throw more money
at the problem, give government more control of our lives and reap the
rewards.
In the 1960's, Government acknowledged again the failure of the
mission and expanded the reach of Government exponentially. With those
promises demonstrably unfulfilled, Government find itself again at a
crossroads. Continue creeping incrementally towards more Government
spending and a loss of civil and economic liberties or the path of
freedom. I urge Government to offer liberty.
I do not doubt the compassion and intentions of many of the social
reformers, then or now. They are, indeed, well-meaning folks. The
problem is that the effects of their good intentions run counter to the
aims of their endeavors.
Instead of a safety net that merely prevents a newly unemployed
single mother from falling, the public housing project traps her and
her family in its net and holds them hostage to the whims of the local
Public Housing Authorities. These PHA's are not accountable to her. She
has sacrificed her liberty to PHA's that are too often sinecures
provided by political cronyism. Tales of their abuse are legendary.
This corrupt scenario produces crime statistics proportionately twice
as high in and around subsidized housing projects as in the communities
as wholes, according to HUD's Office of Public and Indian Housing.
Without the accountability inherent in a market situation, abuses are
almost predictable. The public housing projects are but one of the
worst examples of flouting the free market and the loss of
accountability.
H.R. 2 attempts to improve the lot of those benefiting from
subsidized housing and make the bureaucracy less burdensome.
Unfortunately, by the time this proposal goes to the floor, so many
changes will have been made, compromises accepted and political deals
consummated that we end up with a bill in some ways worse than the
status quo, as bad as that is.
The end result of this well-meaning attempt to care for those less
fortunate is higher taxes, especially on the working poor, slower
economic growth, fewer job offers and a reaffirmation of Government's
determination to keep tenants trapped in substandard housing whose
managers are not accountable to them.
At the same time, those politically astute suppliers of Government
housing encourage the continuation of such programs at the expense of
the more productive suppliers whose political polish does not place
them in he ambit of those doling out the grants.
We should end this misguided approach to such legislation. It
punishes all taxpayers with the future additional expense of increased
eligibility requirements while limiting further the availability of
subsidized housing for those who currently qualify. It rewards special
interest favors for the politically connected--both unaccountable
subsidized housing managers, department bureaucrats, politically
contributing public construction businesses and the landlords cashing
above market Government rent checks for substandard housing.
The opportunity that H.R. 2 provides is squandered in an extension of
more of the same. While consolidating programs could make oversight
easier and bureaucrats and local PHA's more accountable, it is unlikely
that this bill will go far enough to address the problems with our
subsidized housing programs. New problems resulting from targeting are
almost certain. Many of the critics of the left are correct to point
out this mean misallocation of funds from the working poor and middle
class to tenants with higher incomes than current tenants despite the
waiting list.
Only by rewarding individual initiative, choice, responsibility and
the resultant accountability can Government reforms better serve the
recipients. Of course, only less Government and lower taxes will truly
meet those aims.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 163,
noes 261, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 126]
AYES--163
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Filner
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--261
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boyd
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
[[Page H2645]]
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas
Luther
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--9
Andrews
Crapo
Fattah
Flake
Hefner
Schiff
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Watkins
{time} 1508
Mrs. MORELLA and Messrs. HASTERT, McDADE, BASS, and LUTHER changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. WISE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 126, I had a
malfunction of my pager. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHOOD). If there are no further
amendments to the bill, the question is on the committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Combest) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman pro tempore 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, pursuant to House Resolution 133, he reported the
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of
the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the
bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts moves to recommit the bill
H.R. 2 to the Committee on Banking and Financial Services
with instructions to reconsider the bill for the purposes
of--
(1) improving the income targeting provisions of the bill
by reserving more housing assistance for very low-income
families of various incomes; and
(2) eliminating provisions in the bill creating unnecessary
bureaucracies.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in
the RECORD.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to
recommit.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. First, Mr. Speaker, I want to reach out
to my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] for the
efforts he and his staff, and the efforts of the Committee on Banking
and Financial Services staff have made, and all the members of the
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity have made on this
bill over the course of the last 3 weeks. This was, I thought, instead
of being a housing bill, it turned into a California desert bill.
I think that the bill before us creates the kind of dilemma that some
of us will relish and some of us will recognize its time for a decision
about what motivates us to run for the Congress of the United States.
One choice before us, the choice to include it in H.R. 2, will in fact
in some ways fix public housing. It will fix public housing, all right.
It will fix the affordable housing programs in America. It fixes them
by one easy sign of a pen. That one easy signing of the pen fixes this
problem by simply eliminating the poor from eligibility for these
programs.
So if we want to look good before the American people and say,
listen, we have eliminated all those monstrosities, all those terrible
icons that represent Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose very act H.R. 2
will eliminate, H.R. 2 eliminates the 1937 Federal Housing Act, the
basic fundamental protections for the poorest people in this country.
The question before us is not whether or not we should be turning our
back on the very poor, it is not to say that the largest single segment
of our population, the largest growing segment of Americans, is the
very, very poor people of this country. What this bill does is
essentially say that we are going to jack up the income guidelines on
the housing programs of America, where currently 75 percent of all the
units that go out in public or assisted housing go to people with 30
percent of median income or less. What we are going to do is
essentially say that not a single unit of public housing will
necessarily go to the very poor.
{time} 1515
In terms of the voucher program, 80 percent of those units can now go
to people with moderate incomes, people earning 35 or $40,000 a year. I
say people earning 25, 35 or $40,000 a year ought to have housing
programs. They ought to have homeownership programs. In every city
across America, banks and insurance companies are looking around for
good loans that they can provide meaningful homeownership to those
individuals. We ought not to be using the precious resources that are
contained in public housing to go to those needs. We ought to be using
the precious resources of public housing and the precious resources in
the voucher program to go to the needs of the very, very poor.
People will say that we need to reform how we build public housing
and how the people are obtained that live in public housing and how
many of them go to the very poor. We are going to hear a lot of
rhetoric in the next few minutes saying that the Democrats are simply
offering a new way of going back to the old way. They are going to
suggest that we have not thought about the reforms that are necessary
to get public housing out of the terrible condition it is in. It is in
terrible condition in some of the cities of this country.
But let us not forget that there are 3,400 public housing authorities
in this country. There are 100 badly run housing authorities. There are
badly run
[[Page H2646]]
housing projects. We ought to give the Secretary the capability of
going after those badly run housing projects and taking them back. We
ought to take control of the badly run housing authorities.
This bill, in the Democratic substitute, eliminated the work
disincentives. The Democratic substitute increases the working poor in
public housing substantially over a period of 10 years. We will have 50
percent of those units going to people with incomes above 50 percent of
median income. But it is the terrible conditions that are going to be
in place for the very, very poor.
This country has done something unconscionable. We have said that
what we are going to do in terms of balancing the budget is go about
doing it by cutting the housing budget of America from $28 billion to
$20 billion. We turned around and cut the homeless budget by 25
percent. Then we turned to the public housing authorities and said,
``We are going to save you. We are going to save you by allowing you to
go out and take some more working families in. We are going to allow
you to take up the incomes of the people that come in and charge them
more rent.''
That is what we have done, but we have not ever solved the problem.
So we turn our back on the very poor, we turn our back on the homeless,
and then we talk about the wonderful reforms that we are going to put
into place.
I say to my colleagues that we can get the reforms in place, we can
allow public housing to go to more working families, but we do not have
to do it by abandoning the poor, we do not have to do it by turning our
back on the homeless. Let us not vote for an antihousing bill. Let us
vote for a pro-Democratic housing bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Combest). Is the gentleman from New York
opposed to the motion?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. Leach], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services who has stood alongside me as we have
debated this bill these last 3 weeks.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, in considering this motion to recommit I
would hope Members on the other side would recognize that the party of
liberalism that is doing well in the world is the party of Tony Blair,
not parties of extremism that object to free market, to change of
programs that fail, to restrained budgets.
Before the House this afternoon is landmark legislation which
attempts to balance the need for reform with the needs of the poor.
While the authorization number is consistent with the administration's
recommendation, some have implied the legislation is skinflinted. Our
side would suggest it is an attempt to reform rather than eviscerate
public housing; to change a partially failed system without walking
away from the needy.
Mr. Kennedy's approach would knock out of public housing programs
most families of four with two parents holding minimum wage jobs. It
would make it exceedingly difficult for two single parents in public
housing with jobs to consider marriage because they would lose their
housing benefits.
In the last century two English political philosophers, Jeremy
Bentham and James Mill--the son of John Stuart Mill--advanced a
doctrine of utilitarianism--the guide of which was the precept, ``the
greatest good of the greatest number.''
Modern day liberals have abandoned 19th century progressive
philosophy and replaced it with the notion of constituency politics, of
targeting programs to groups without reference to their effect on
society as a whole. The effect has been the development of a dependency
cycle, which the new majority in Congress is attempting to break, and
this bill is part of that effort.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, in these last few minutes of this
debate after 3 weeks of having this bill on the floor with over 60
amendments, this body is about to make a choice about the direction in
which we are going to begin to address not just shelter but the core
issue of poverty. Because the bill that we have before us today is not
just about shelter. It is about trusting local communities. It is about
ensuring that there is accountability. It is about getting value for
our dollars. It is about transforming communities. It is about
addressing some of the toughest issues that we have in America today.
Yes, it is absolutely true that we will never be able to legislate an
end to poverty from this House. There will be no bill that will be
signed that will end poverty. The best that we can hope for is that we
will begin to put in place a set of incentives for work, for family,
for local control, for responsibility, and for accountability that will
begin to mobilize the huge potential of human resources that we have in
our own communities. There are those in this body on both sides of the
aisle that believe we should tap into that huge human resource, that we
should trust local control. In this bill we protect the poorest of the
poor, but we also say that local housing authorities ought to have more
choice so they can deal with their own problems.
This is one of the public housing projects, not in some third world
country but in America today. It is perversely called Desire in New
Orleans. Last year when we were debating this bill, out of a score of 1
to 100, HUD gave this public housing authority a score of 27. Can my
colleagues imagine if one came back and talked to his family and said
to his mom, dad, grandma, or grandpa, I got a score of 27 on my test,
year after year after year. They would say, ``I think we ought to sit
down and make some changes.''
That is not the worst of it. The worst of it is in the year that has
followed to this year, that score has not budged. That means that is
another year in which young children are condemned to this situation of
despair, this sense of no opportunity, of failure. Today we have
something important to say with H.R. 2. We say this: We will end the
disincentives to work, we will end the disincentives to families, we
will provide flexibility, because we stand with families, we stand with
working people, we stand with local control and we stand for ending
poverty in all the communities throughout America. Vote for H.R. 2.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question was
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit was rejected.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 293,
noes 132, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 127]
AYES--293
Ackerman
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boyd
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
[[Page H2647]]
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kelly
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--132
Abercrombie
Allen
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berman
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Dingell
Dixon
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E.B.
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Stupak
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weygand
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--8
Andrews
Flake
Hefner
Kasich
Kleczka
Schiff
Skelton
Watkins
{time} 1543
Mr. FORD changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________