[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 107 (Friday, July 25, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1522]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page E1522]]
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                       HON. LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 16, 1997

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2158) making 
     appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and 
     Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent 
     agencies, commissions, corporations, and offices for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other 
     purposes:

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate Chairman Lewis and 
Ranking Member Stokes on producing a bipartisan bill with broad support 
in the House.
  However, Mr. Chairman, I would like to highlight the multi-Family 
Preservation Program in the hopes that the HUD-VA Conference Committee 
will appropriate funding for this essential program. This program is 
very important to low-income communities not only in my congressional 
district but throughout the Nation because it is critical to 
maintaining our country's dwindling affordable rental housing supply.
  The Preservation Program keeps housing affordable for low-income 
families, the disabled and the elderly by allowing private owners to 
transfer their rental properties to tenant-endorsed nonprofits who will 
continue to serve this vulnerable residential population. As a 
consequence of HUD's Preservation Program, over 800,000 units of 
affordable housing have been preserved.
  Currently, there are 260 projects nationwide, consisting of more than 
29,000 units, that need funding to avoid their conversion to market-
rate rentals and prevent the displacement of thousands of low-income 
tenants.
  The Preservation program continues to have solid bipartisan support. 
As recently as June 20th, I joined 27 of my California colleagues from 
both sides of the aisle in sending a letter of support for the 
Preservation Program. In our letter, we stressed that California alone 
has 25 percent of the country's unfunded preservation properties. This 
represents approximately 5,000 units awaiting preservation funding in 
California alone.
  The Preservation program has been criticized as being too expensive 
and many references have been made to a pending GAO report, which is 
critical of the program. While there have been some high costs 
associated with the program, the fact is that it is relatively 
inexpensive. In its findings, GAO cities almost exclusively the high 
cost preservation projects, which are not representative of the entire 
group of properties in the national queue. While I have no doubt that 
the GAO findings are accurate for the small sample studied, this report 
does not mean that Congress should make hasty or ill-advised 
conclusions about the program's overall true costs to the taxpayer 
based on an unrepresentative sampling.
  It is important to note that temporary enhanced vouchers--which are 
being proposed to mitigate the loss of housing for thousands of 
displaced low income families and the elderly--are not a viable or 
cost-effective substitute for this important housing stock. Vouchers 
will not protect the physical housing stock, nor will they guarantee 
the current residents any long-term security because it is dependent on 
annual congressional appropriations.
  The HUD-VA Conference Committee has consistently recognized the value 
of the Preservation Program and provided adequate funds over the past 2 
years. I rise to ask the conference committee to mirror the sensible 
and cost-effective efforts of past years and fund the Preservation 
Program at a level of $350 million for fiscal year 1998.

                          ____________________