[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.
____________________