[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 27, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H7588-H7591]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  HOPE VI REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2006

  Mr. Oxley. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 5347) to reauthorize the HOPE VI program for revitalization of 
public housing projects, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 5347

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``HOPE VI Reauthorization Act 
     of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROGRAM.

       Section 24 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437v) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) of subsection (m), by striking the 
     matter that follows ``section'' and inserting the following: 
     ``such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2007.''; and
       (2) in subsection (o), by striking ``September 30, 2006'' 
     and inserting ``September 30, 2007''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.


                             General Leave

  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 5347, the HOPE VI 
Reauthorization Act of 2006, introduced by the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays). This important piece of legislation would 
simply reauthorize the HOPE VI program for one more year and would 
continue to provide a resource to revitalize severely distressed public 
housing units.
  Since 1993, this program has been an important part of the 
transformation of public housing by encouraging public housing 
authorities to seek new partnerships with private entities to create 
mixed-finance and mixed-income affordable housing that is developed and 
operated very differently from traditional public housing.
  HOPE VI epitomizes public-private partnerships for funding 
redevelopment projects. Mixed-finance development projects have allowed 
the government

[[Page H7589]]

to raise millions of dollars from the private sector for redevelopment 
projects using Federal funds as bait. For every governmental dollar, 
these partnerships can yield $3 or $4 additional in private investment.
  Despite the obvious advantages of HOPE VI, the program has needed 
improvement. In 2003, in a previous reauthorization of HOPE VI, the 
Financial Services Committee added reforms by requiring the HUD to 
select grantees, among other criteria, on their capacity to bring 
planning and ultimately development to fruition within a more expedited 
time frame.
  In addition, the committee was concerned that the HOPE VI program was 
biased toward larger urban areas. Thus, the committee required that at 
least 5 percent of the HOPE VI funds be awarded to smaller communities, 
particularly rural areas, where public housing authorities are not 
present, to assist in the redevelopment of town areas for affordable 
housing. Now known as the Main Street Project, many rural communities 
are able to access these vital redevelopment funds.
  The HOPE VI program has been a valuable program in addressing many of 
this country's housing needs by revitalizing communities rather than 
simply building public housing. This House has repeatedly spoken on 
this program by continuing to fund HOPE VI in the relevant 
appropriations bills year after year.
  I would like to thank good friend Chris Shays for his leadership on 
this important affordable housing program. By reauthorizing HOPE VI, 
this bill will continue the reforms established in 2003 to ensure that 
smaller communities have access to important revitalization dollars and 
will continue to make HOPE VI a cost-effective and efficient program 
for the American taxpayer.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5347, the HOPE VI 
Reauthorization Act of 2006. I am one of the original cosponsors of the 
legislation, and I want to take time to congratulate the distinguished 
chairman, Mr. Oxley; Ranking Member Frank; Mr. Watt; and Mr. Shays for 
sponsoring this important legislation.
  The members of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Affairs, of 
which I am ranking member, have worked tirelessly to overcome obstacles 
to extend HOPE VI. Indeed, there is a strong possibility that the HOPE 
VI program would have expired at the end of this fiscal year without 
the strong leadership displayed on this bill.
  HOPE VI is a valuable program, but not a perfect program. Some of the 
criticisms include displacement of tenants, delays in development of 
projects, and a built-in bias toward large urban areas. As with any 
major Federal program, there are lessons to be learned, and in the case 
of HOPE VI, many of the challenges that have been identified were 
addressed in prior reauthorization bills. We also must understand that 
these concerns must be understood within the context of the different 
communities that have utilized the HOPE VI program. This might explain 
why HUD has evaluated HOPE VI grantees on a case-by-case basis, rather 
than on the basis of formal program requirements.
  One major issue compounding HOPE VI is the fact that in many 
communities the supply of available and affordable housing is not 
adequate to accommodate those who become displaced. Secondly, the 
development process related to HOPE VI is far more complicated than 
what was envisioned by the architects of the program, and many delays 
are attributed to the needs of the many stakeholders in the community, 
including tenants.
  According to the 2003 GAO report entitled ``HOPE VI Resident Issues 
and Changes in Neighborhoods Surrounding Grant Sites,'' the Tucson, 
Arizona, Housing Authority submitted a revitalization plan for a site 
to the Tucson City Council for approval only after the residents had 
voted to approve it. This type of deliberative democratic process adds 
time to the development approval process, whether it is a HOPE VI 
project or not.
  Thirdly, some fear that there is a bias to urban areas under the HOPE 
VI program requirements. In my view, that is not really a fair 
criticism because this is merely a program outcome. I see no reason why 
we would not want to make sure that HUD targets nonurban areas as we 
move forward to determine HOPE VI works. I have said on numerous 
occasions that the housing needs of the urban communities are not 
drastically different than the housing needs of nonurban communities.
  Both GAO and CRS provide important findings on the HOPE VI program.
  As of June 2004, 56,221 households had been relocated by HOPE VI 
revitalization grantees. Of these households, 48 percent were moved to 
public housing, 32 percent were given section 8 vouchers, 6 percent 
evicted, 19 percent moved to revitalized units, and 13 percent made 
other housing choices.
  The neighborhoods in which 1996 HOPE VI sites are located generally 
have experienced improvements in indicators such as education, income 
and housing.
  And mortgage lending activity increased in HOPE VI neighborhoods 
compared to other neighborhoods.
  These strong findings are, in part, why I support the HOPE VI 
reauthorization bill. The bill has strong bipartisan support, and HOPE 
VI would be reauthorized through 2007, although we had originally 
intended for the bill to be extended through 2011. Importantly, the 
factors used to assess grant applications for the programs include 
need, capacity, quality and leveraging. So perhaps as we move forward, 
it is more appropriate for the detractors of the program to measure the 
track record of the HOPE VI program's use of these new criteria and not 
base the success of the program on individual project outcomes.
  By some estimates, HOPE VI has leveraged between $5 billion and $8 
billion of private investment in communities across the Nation. The 
demand for HOPE VI grants in communities throughout the country 
continues to exceed the available resources. HUD receives three 
applications for every HOPE VI award made.
  The need to revitalize distressed public housing is precisely the 
reason that HOPE VI was conceived. Communities throughout this country 
with old, decaying and abandoned public housing stock often located on 
prime land needed to seek ways to improve the quality of life in their 
communities. HOPE VI provided one answer to addressing these conditions 
in its early stages; and with improvement in the way the program will 
be operated in the future, even greater progress will be made in 
meeting needs.
  Absent the bipartisan support that HOPE VI enjoys today, the 
elimination of the program was a near certainty. By changing the 
criteria to evaluate grantee applications, including evaluation of the 
capacity of the grantees to undertake HOPE VI projects, support for the 
program should broaden. HOPE VI is an extremely competitive program 
that reflects success. Communities should be able to include this 
Federal resource in their revitalization planning efforts immediately 
and in the future.
  I would urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the able gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the author 
of this legislation.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill that, as amended, reauthorizes 
the HOPE VI program through 2007. Reauthorizing the HOPE VI for an 
additional year will have an important impact on the lives of low-
income people and will also pay tremendous dividends in towns and 
cities across America.
  I am grateful to have worked on this legislation with my colleagues 
Jim Leach, Maxine Waters, Artur Davis who has worked very hard on this, 
Mel Watt as well, Charlie Dent, and appreciate the assistance and 
guidance they have provided.

                              {time}  1815

  I also appreciate the support of Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member 
Frank in moving this bill forward. I

[[Page H7590]]

have tremendous admiration for my chairman and ranking member and the 
work that they have done throughout a number of years. With their 
assistance, this legislation passed the Financial Services Committee by 
voice vote.
  HOPE VI epitomizes public-private partnerships for funding 
redevelopment projects. Mixed-finance agreements have allowed the 
government to raise millions of dollars from the private sector for 
redevelopment properties using Federal funds as leverage. For every 
government dollar granted, these partnerships can yield an additional 
$3 or $4.
  Let me give an example of an incredible HOPE VI project that has been 
completed in Stamford, Connecticut. A $26 million HOPE VI grant 
leveraged an additional $80 million in State, local, and private funds. 
The HOPE VI transformed Southfield Village, a dim, crime-ridden, and 
dilapidated housing project into Southwood Square, a beautiful place to 
live and raise your children.
  It is also a mixed-income community, where low-income families and 
those paying market rent live side-by-side. I am talking about people 
who make more than $100,000. Their children play together, and they 
have the opportunity to grow and learn from one another.
  As a result of this Federal assistance, Southwood Square is now a 
safe place for children to play. Its residents receive job training on 
site. Others are going to work, and working parents have access to 
child care facilities. Instead of the BMW belonging to drug dealers, 
they belong to employees who work for the many businesses in the 
community. Just as importantly, residents are involved in their 
community.
  I wish Members could see the transformation that has taken place 
there. Another HOPE VI project at Fairfield Court in Stamford is now 
beginning and promises to be just as successful as Southwood Square.
  The lesson here is, when the Federal Government demonstrates its 
interest in improving the housing needs of low-income families, the 
community responds in a big way.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation and again thank 
Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank for their cooperation in 
bringing this legislation before us, as well as the lead cosponsors on 
both sides of the aisle for their support. This was a team effort, and 
that is why passage tonight is so satisfying.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Let me say just one thing at the outset, Mr. Speaker. Prior to the 
conception of the HOPE VI program, we tended to believe that public 
housing was a condition that was not alterable, it was not changeable; 
and, similarly, we believed that it would look pretty much as it did 
when a public housing unit was conceived.
  The signal event that happened when this program was passed in the 
late 1980s was that, all of a sudden, we recognized that a public 
housing unit, like any other piece of property in America, can be 
transformed. It can be made esthetically attractive. It can be made a 
unit that will attract residents from different income levels. It can 
be made a place that is not just a shelter, that is not just four 
walls, but that is a home.
  I have to think that that recognition about the capacity to 
physically change communities has had a carryover impact on the lives 
of the people who live there.
  So put aside all the statistics that we have talked about, put aside 
the information that we have discussed today about the leveraging of 
investments and the leveraging of dollars in the communities. This is 
ultimately about a new stake and a new confidence in places in America 
that have historically been neglected.
  Let me thank a few people. I certainly want to thank the outstanding 
Chair of this committee, as he leaves the House and moves into the 
private sector, for being such a consistent voice in support not just 
of this program but all kinds of other good housing programs for the 
United States.
  Obviously, I want to thank the ranking member for being so diligent 
on this issue. I want to thank two of my colleagues who are here, Mr. 
Watt of North Carolina and Ms. Waters of California, who yielded time.
  A lot of us support HOPE VI, but what has distinguished Maxine Waters 
and Mel Watt is that for a period of their whole 14 years in the House 
they have constantly said, yes, we can make it better, yes, we can fix 
it, but let us not do away with it. And when the critics and the 
detractors have questioned this program, the two of them have been 
enormously vigilant.
  Let me certainly thank Mr. Shays for his work, and let me recognize 
someone whose name has not been called, who is also departing the 
House, Ms. Harris of Florida.
  Twice we have had to bring amendments to the floor of the House to 
sustain funding for this program. Twice we have had to ask the House to 
second-guess the administration, to make a dollar commitment to this 
program. Two years ago, we got 59 Republicans to cross party lines. 
This year we topped that. We got 64 Republicans to cross party lines. 
And a lot of that was a function of Ms. Harris' work.
  So I want to end on this note. We all agree, or so many of us in this 
Chamber agree about the value of this program. I hope there are two 
people in the United States who will take heed of that, the President 
of the United States and the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development. Because for 4 years now they have given us budgets that 
would do away with HOPE VI. For 2 years, this House has accurately and 
correctly second-guessed them and put the money back in. And today this 
House will make another statement by reauthorizing this program.
  This works when the two branches of government that the people 
select, the executive and the legislative, actually listen to each 
other. This business works better when the executive branch every now 
and then takes heed of what we do here.
  There are two more budgets, Ms. Waters, that will be issued from the 
Bush administration before the President takes leave to Crawford. I 
hope that both of those budgets are much more reflective of Mike Oxley 
and Chris Shays and Katherine Harris, as well as the numerous people on 
this side of the aisle who believe in the utility of this program.
  So this is an important statement for families who live in these 
units, and it is a statement of our values as well.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong support of the 
HOPE VI Reauthorization Act of 2006, H.R. 5347.
  This program does play a vital role in the redevelopment of severely 
dilapidated public housing units and promotes self-sufficiency among 
the residents of the community. HOPE VI projects forge new 
relationships and partnerships between local businesses and development 
agencies, garnering growth and investment in poverty stricken 
neighborhoods.
  In May, 2005, the Allentown Housing Authority, located in my 
district, received $20 million from this program for the redevelopment 
and revitalization of the Hanover Acres and Riverview Terrace public 
housing facilities. Once complete, the project will provide 322 new 
housing units and a community center for families, as well as adult 
education services, youth programs, child care, and homeownership and 
money management education programs for residents.
  Because of this investment, families will have increased 
opportunities for education, job skills, training, and job placement. 
This HOPE VI project is not only crucial to Hanover Acres but 
ultimately a catalyst for the revitalization of the entire community 
and neighborhood.
  The HOPE VI program has already facilitated the redevelopment of 
80,000 housing units across the Nation. However, there are 
approximately 60,000 units still in desperate need of revitalization. 
Each revitalization project we undertake across the country will 
undoubtedly provide crucial economic stability for countless children 
and families through housing, community centers, and educational 
services.
  I believe it is crucial that we continue to provide the means for 
revitalization of our most distressed neighborhoods and the opportunity 
for families and children to prosper in secure

[[Page H7591]]

surroundings. I ask that my colleagues vote in favor of the HOPE VI 
Reauthorization Act.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the Chair of the 
Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Watt).
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for 
yielding time.
  I rise in support of H.R. 5347. It is necessary to extend this 
program, and we are extending it for 1 year, the reauthorization, and 
that is the best we can do. You may sense frustration in that 
statement, because there is a sense of frustration. I have been at this 
HOPE VI for a long time now, and I think we need to go back and trace a 
little bit of the history of how we got here.
  HOPE VI is not a Democratic program. It was introduced under a 
Republican administration. It was the brainchild of Jack Kemp when he 
was Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. And the idea was that 
we were not going to make any progress on dealing with community issues 
as long as we had these tremendous numbers, thousands of people in 
dense public housing communities in various places throughout the 
country, and that the only way we could approach the problem 
effectively was to disperse poverty and create communities with mixed 
incomes, low-income people, middle-income people, and high- income 
people. And so HOPE VI was about community revitalization.
  All of the complaints I have heard about it over the years make it 
sound like people don't understand how difficult it is to do community 
revitalization. Because every time somebody says, well, they didn't 
finish a project in a year, I say to them, you can do construction in a 
year, you cannot do community revitalization in a year. It takes time 
to revitalize a community.
  Now, why am I so passionate about this? We have seen five communities 
in the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, completely transformed as a 
result of HOPE VI. We have seen one community in Greensboro, North 
Carolina, in my congressional district, completely transformed as a 
result of HOPE VI. We have seen two communities completely transformed 
in the Winston Salem part of my congressional district as a result of 
HOPE VI. We bring a little bit of Federal money, private people come to 
the table, and you end up with a mixed community in terms of income, 
racially and otherwise.
  And I can tell you, if you come into downtown Charlotte now, you will 
see a completely different story than you saw 10, 12, 15 years ago. You 
will see a beautiful community where a concentration of low-income 
public housing used to be. Now if anybody tells me that is not success, 
I say I do not know what success is. That was exactly what the program 
was designed to do.
  And I don't understand how this President, on so many issues, 
including this one, will take a successful program and all of a sudden 
say this program doesn't work.
  Now, coincidentally, most of the money is going into Democratic 
districts. That is really what the debate, the subtext of a lot of this 
debate, has been about. We knew where the public housing projects were. 
They were in most of our congressional districts. We set out to try to 
do something about those, and we have done something about those using 
HOPE VI. It has been the single most successful community 
revitalization and housing program probably that our Nation has ever 
seen, contrasted with the whole idea of warehousing poor people in 
concentrations of low-income communities.
  So I am passionate about this. I am delighted we are extending this 
program for a year. But, at the same time, we need to recognize there 
is not but $99 million even in the appropriations bill that hasn't been 
passed and finalized. And every time we have had to fight this battle 
to reauthorize the program we have lost funding for the program, so it 
gets less and less and less effective at accomplishing its mission.
  So I congratulate my friends for extending the program, and I ask for 
their support, all of our support, for extending a program that is a 
no-brainer. We ought to all be supporting this program.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
5347 the HOPE VI Reauthorization Act of 2006.
  Public housing is a necessity in communities throughout this country. 
With the stock of affordable housing declining nationwide because of 
the rising cost of land, materials and labor, many families cannot 
afford to buy or even rent homes.
  A study in Broward County alone showed the county needs 15,000 new 
affordable units a year to keep pace with demand. A Miami-Dade study, 
based on the 2000 U.S. Census, found the county needs to construct an 
additional 81,400 housing units for very low- and middle-income 
residents between 2000 and 2015.
  At the same time, the number of Americans living in poverty has risen 
for 4 straight years in a row. Today, about 37 million Americans live 
at or below the poverty level. The hardest hit are women and children, 
over 12 million children live in poverty.
  For many of these people, public housing is often the only option 
available to them. We know this is true because the sad truth is that 
public housing stocks are often in terrible condition. I have visited 
public housing units in my district with peeling paint, broken floor 
boards and windows, dilapidated appliances and defective wiring. This 
kind of neglect is not unique; the are many such housing units.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why the HOPE VI program is so important. H.R. 
5347, the HOPE VI Reauthorization Act of 2006, will continue for an 
additional 5 years the program begun in 1990 to demolish run-down 
housing projects and to replace them with attractive, safe, fully 
functioning and affordable housing in mixed income communities.
  Even as we reauthorize the HOPE VI program and recognize its 
potential to revitalize neighborhoods and communities and provide 
quality housing to people who need it, we must also acknowledge the 
need to make sure that HOPE VI does not destroy neighborhoods in the 
name of revitalizing them and that we extract from HOPE VI dollars the 
maximum amount of housing for local residents.
  Because successful HOPE VI grants require such a high percentage of 
local funding, they are a good way to stretch scarce Federal housing 
dollars. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5347, the Hope 
VI Reauthorization Act of 2006.
  Congress created the bipartisan HOPE VI program in 1992 to restore 
distressed housing and build new, safe, and cohesive communities. To 
date HOPE VI has awarded over $5 billion to revitalize 193 public 
housing developments.
  In my district alone, we have three HOPE VI projects: Mandela 
Gateway, Lions Creek Crossing, and Chestnut Linden Court.
  The HOPE VI program works because its requirement for community buy-
in is a responsive, flexible, and accessible redevelopment tool that 
effectively addresses the multi-billion dollar backlog in public 
housing capital needs.
  But despite the accomplishments of HOPE VI, the administration 
continues to try and kill it. That just doesn't make any sense.
  In passing H.R. 5347 today, we send a message to the administration, 
to housing authorities, and to the business community that HOPE VI is 
here to stay.
  But we can't stop with Hope VI re-authorization.
  We must also fully fund our housing authority's capital and operating 
needs, Section 8 vouchers, and special-needs tenants like the elderly, 
the handicapped, and those living with HIV/AIDS.
  Together these initiatives can help re-focus our attention on those 
who are most in need.

                              {time}  1830

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 5347, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________