[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 111 (Thursday, July 12, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H7719-H7726]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1815
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1851, SECTION 8 VOUCHER REFORM ACT 
                                OF 2007

  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 534 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 534

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for

[[Page H7720]]

     consideration of the bill (H.R. 1851) to reform the housing 
     choice voucher program under section 8 of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 
     of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Financial Services. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Financial Services now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising 
     under clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of 
     rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 
     10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
     bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
     bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 1851 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, my colleague, Mr. 
Diaz-Balart. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Ms. CASTOR. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 534.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 534 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 1851, the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007, 
under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Financial Services.
  The rule makes in order the Financial Services substitute as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment.
  The rule also makes in order six amendments printed in the Rules 
Committee report. Each amendment is debatable for 10 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, many American families are facing a critical housing 
crunch. The cost of an apartment or home is rising out of sight. But 
there is good news from a majority of this Congress that keeps fighting 
for a new direction for America. The reform provided today through H.R. 
1851, under this rule, which has bipartisan support, will help families 
in need of affordable housing.
  I would like to thank Housing and Community Development Subcommittee 
Chair Maxine Waters, and Financial Services Chair Barney Frank for 
their leadership in housing and commitment to our Nation's families.
  Our actions today are needed because, over the past few years, the 
Bush administration has caused great frustration when it comes to 
housing. The White House eliminated housing opportunities for 
approximately 150,000 families under a major section 8 funding formula 
change.
  The White House refused to release about $1.4 billion in unused 
voucher funds for affordable housing. So, Mr. Speaker, instead of homes 
for many families in need, thousands of families have been placed on 
waiting lists.
  In my hometown of Tampa, Florida, during a 1-week open enrollment 
session, more than 10,000 seniors, families and veterans indicated a 
need for housing. But, instead of receiving housing, they were placed 
on a waiting list. The waiting list takes up to 4 years, and is so long 
that the Tampa Housing Authority is unable to help others that need it.
  Even with this reform bill, Mr. Speaker, the final fair market value 
rents are in need of adjustment. It's ridiculous and completely 
unreasonable for HUD to believe that a 3-bedroom apartment in the 
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater area is available for just over $1,000. 
The truth is, those affordable homes and apartments are few and far 
between, and this must be fixed.
  Nevertheless, H.R. 1851 takes positive steps to ensure that more 
families are able to find a clean, safe, stable and affordable place to 
live. Through the major reforms contained in the bill, we are going to 
increase the number of families that can receive housing over the next 
5 years.
  We will simplify the rules and procedures used to establish rents for 
section 8 and provide housing. We're going to reduce the bureaucracy 
and red tape for our public housing authorities so they can concentrate 
on assisting the elderly, the physically challenged and other 
struggling families.
  We're going to provide incentives for families to become more self-
sufficient by obtaining employment, increasing their incomes, pursuing 
higher education and planning for retirement. These families will also 
be able to use section 8 vouchers for a down payment on the American 
dream of home ownership. We will continue to fight to keep families 
safe and protected in an affordable, clean and safe home.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to support this bill. And the Congress 
should be eager to pass this reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my 
friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for the 
time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today, the Housing Choice Voucher Program, more commonly known as 
section 8, helps provide housing assistance to around 2 million low-
income families and individuals each year. The program began in 1974, 
primarily as a project-based rental assistance program. By the next 
decade, it had become evident that the project-based model was too 
costly and concentrated families in high poverty areas, thereby making 
it harder to break the cycle of poverty.
  In 1983, Congress stopped providing project-based section 8 contracts 
and created vouchers as a replacement. The voucher program allows 
families with a voucher to find and lease a unit in the private sector, 
instead of being limited to certain section 8 housing complexes. 
Recipients pay a portion of their rent, based on their income, while 
the voucher covers the remaining portion of the rent.
  In 1998, the program consumed 42 percent of HUD's annual budget. By 
2005, it had grown to over 62 percent of HUD's budget. If the growth in 
the program is not addressed and reformed, we could face a situation 
where deserving low-income families would be unable to receive any 
assistance.
  The underlying bill makes a number of improvements to the section 8 
program to reform and simplify regulations of local public housing 
agencies, while preserving essential tenant protection. H.R. 1851 aims 
to simplify rent calculation and inspection requirements for section 8 
vouchers, project-based assistance and public housing, and to promote 
self sufficiency on the part of assisted families through work 
incentives and home ownership opportunities.
  This bill can make good changes to the section 8 voucher program. The 
funding allocation formula included in the bill codifies the formula 
change made in the continuing resolution,

[[Page H7721]]

February 2007. It uses the public housing agencies' vouchers costs and 
utilization rates from the last 12 months, instead of the 2004 numbers 
for a quarter of that year.
  Under current law, HUD is required to recapture the amount in excess 
of each public housing agency's reserve limits, funds that are left 
over after the renewal of vouchers. If the PHA does not use all the 
money that the government has authorized, then the government 
reallocates those funds to another PHA the following year.
  The community that I'm honored to represent has lost millions of 
dollars to other public housing agencies under the change in law made 
by this Congress. The current funding formula neglects the coverage 
costs of litigation issues or weather damage, of living facilities 
which were financed by the excess funds.
  The manager's amendment, Mr. Speaker, which will be debated later 
today, will allow public housing agencies to retain, to keep 12.5 
percent of their reserve funds during the first year of the formula 
change. After the transition, PHAs will remain with 5 percent of their 
reserve funds in a given year. The manager's amendment aims to somewhat 
compensate for losses faced by public housing agencies such as those in 
my community.
  I commend the Financial Services Committee, its chairman and ranking 
member, and all of its members, for working in a bipartisan manner to 
make improvements to the section 8 program. I look forward to the 
committee's continued efforts to improve the program, and to addressing 
the concerns I have mentioned with the funding formula.
  Mr. Speaker, unlike the bipartisan nature with which and under which 
the Financial Services Committee has worked this bill, the majority in 
the Rules Committee failed to live up to that same standard. There were 
23 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee for consideration. The 
majority on the Rules Committee made only six amendments in order. Yes, 
half of them, a whopping three, were Republican amendments, but there 
were 12 Republican amendments that had been submitted.
  During consideration of this rule, the minority made attempts to make 
several other Republican amendments in order, but the majority blocked 
each amendment by party line vote. That's quite a contrast to how the 
Financial Services Committee has worked.
  My colleague on the Rules Committee from Texas, Mr. Sessions, also 
offered an amendment to the rule that would have made this an open 
rule, Mr. Speaker. The majority on the Rules Committee blocked our 
efforts for an open rule. This is contrary to how the majority promised 
to run the House of Representatives, and it is most unfortunate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished chair of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Frank.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. I 
thank my colleague from Florida for the generous words about the 
procedure. There were some differences between us on the parties on 
this, but in general, this represents a consensus.
  And, Mr. Speaker, I want to give credit where credit is due. This is 
a result of a process that was begun by our former colleague from Ohio, 
Mr. Ney.

                              {time}  1830

  He convened when he was Chair of the Housing Subcommittee a set of 
roundtable discussions with participation from HUD, from tenant groups, 
from landlord groups that participate, and from others. And much of 
what is in this bill came out of the sessions that he and his then 
ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), now the 
Chair of the subcommittee, did.
  So as is always the case in a parliamentary body, we will, as is 
appropriate, focus to some extent on some differences. And there are 
several amendments that will present sharp differences, but people 
ought to keep in mind that it is in the context of a great deal of 
agreement.
  In addition to the agreements already there, I have had conversations 
with several of the Republican Members, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Gary G. Miller); the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell); the 
ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. 
Biggert). We have some agreements about what we should be doing, how 
this should be interpreted, what we should be doing going further, and 
I look forward in the general debate to colloquies with all of them so 
that I think we can further solidify the agreements that we have going 
forward.
  Now, as to the substance of the bill, the section 8 program is a very 
important one. Many of us believe that the problem has been not with 
the section 8 program but that it stood alone, that it was not 
accompanied by programs that would build housing. And in other pieces 
of legislation that have come out of the Financial Services Committee, 
some of which have come to the floor, some of which are about to come 
to the floor, we are going to try to add a supply side, if I may borrow 
the phrase, to the demand side.
  We have a program here which increases the demand for housing by 
putting money in the hands of people who otherwise would not be able to 
afford decent housing. But if all you do is that and you don't also 
help build housing, you can have an adverse impact on price. So we hope 
to be able to balance it, but that is not the fault of this program.
  What this bill does is to make it more flexible. It has much in there 
that HUD agrees with; although, again, I don't claim that everybody 
agrees with everything. An indication of the extent to which this 
simply improves the program, I will include in the Record several 
letters on this subject. One letter comes from those who are the 
landlords, who rent.
  And, by the way, we are not automatically doing them a favor. In a 
tight rental market, as we have in many parts of this country, it is a 
good thing for the public purpose that landlords are willing to 
participate. Many of these landlords, they don't have to be in the 
section 8 program, so we try to reach out to them. And here is a letter 
endorsing the bill from the Association of Homes and Services for the 
Aging, the Institute of Real Estate Management, the National Affordable 
Housing Management Association, the National Apartment Association, the 
National Association of Home Builders, the National Leased Housing 
Association, and the National Multi Housing Council.
  We also have strong support from those in the public sector at the 
local level who administer this: the National Association of Housing 
and Redevelopment Officials and the Council of Large Public Housing 
Agencies. And then we have also a letter from a large coalition of 
advocacy groups, of religious groups that are in the business of 
building the housing. There is a very broad degree of support for this 
bill.
  I understand there are a couple of points of difference, and I 
realize, too, there are some points of difference that couldn't have 
been presented. I would have liked them to be. But I think that the 
three amendments that are in order on the Republican side do present 
some of the most important differences.
  I should note, by the way, that while three amendments reflect the 
disagreement that many in the minority have with the bill, two of the 
other amendments are really bipartisan. The manager's amendment is an 
amendment in which the gentleman from Illinois and the gentlewoman from 
California collaborated.
  So the manager's amendment, one of the six amendments, it is 
designated as the Waters amendment, but it is very bipartisan. And the 
second one that is bipartisan is an amendment that deals with 
situations that threaten the ability of people to stay in affordable 
housing in the district my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) 
and our colleague from the committee from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).
  So we have two amendments which are completely bipartisan. We have 
those three. And then the one that the gentlewoman from New York will 
offer on domestic violence, which I don't think is terribly 
controversial.
  So I understand that we haven't resolved all the differences. I do 
think that, and let me put it this way, of all the housing bills that 
have come to the floor from this committee, this is the

[[Page H7722]]

least controversial. I don't want anyone to get bored. When we come 
back in early September, we can fight again. But I do think on this 
one, while there will be some disagreements, what we reflect is a basic 
consensus on how to improve an important social program that, as I 
said, began under Republican leadership in the last Congress and we 
have largely continued the process.
  I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

                                                    July 12, 2007.
       Dear Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus: We are 
     writing to lend our strong support for H.R. 1851, the Section 
     8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007 (SEVRA), which is scheduled to 
     be debated in the House today. We represent a diverse array 
     of constituencies--ranging from housing providers to tenants 
     to apartment owners to membership organizations to religious 
     leaders--who all agree that this is a very strong piece of 
     legislation.
       Simply put, SEVRA is a good government bill. It stabilizes 
     the voucher program with a permanent funding policy, while 
     simplifying the rules about how to calculate tenant rents and 
     streamlining the housing inspection process. As a result, the 
     voucher program will run more efficiently, tenants will be 
     rewarded when they increase their work effort, and there will 
     be less unnecessary paperwork for all parties involved--
     housing authorities, tenants, and property owners.
       The voucher program is our nation's leading source of 
     housing assistance for low-income people. It serves nearly 
     two million families with children, elderly people, and 
     people with disabilities. Making sure that it operates as 
     effectively as possible is in their interest as well as in 
     our national interest.
       We give this bill our strong endorsement so it can continue 
     through the legislative process and be enacted this year.
           Sincerely,
         AARP, American Association of Homes and Services for the 
           Aging (AAHSA), American Network of Community Options 
           and Resources, Association of Jewish Family & 
           Children's Agencies (AJFCA), The Arc of the United 
           States, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), 
           Coalition on Human Needs (CRN), Consortium for Citizens 
           with Disabilities Housing Task Force, Corporation for 
           Supportive Housing (CSH), Easter Seals.
         Enterprise Community Partners, Housing Assistance Council 
           (HAC), Institute of Real Estate Management, Jewish 
           Council for Public Affairs, Lawyers Committee for Civil 
           Rights Under Law, Local Initiatives Support Corporation 
           (LISC), Lutheran Services in America, National Advocacy 
           Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, National 
           Affordable Housing Management Association (NAHMA).
         National AIDS Housing Coalition, National Alliance of HUD 
           Tenants, National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), 
           National Alliance to End Homelessness, National 
           Apartment Association, National Association of Home 
           Builders, National Association of Housing Co-ops, 
           National Association of Realtors, National Association 
           of State Mental Health Program Directors, National 
           Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community 
           Development.
         National Council of State Housing Agencies (NCSHA), 
           National Housing Conference, National Housing Trust, 
           National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, National 
           Leased Housing Association, National Low Income Housing 
           Coalition, National Multi Housing Council, National 
           People's Action (NPA), National Training and 
           Information Center (NTIC), NETWORK, a National Catholic 
           Social Justice Lobby.
         Poverty & Race Research Action Council (PRRAC), 
           Presbyterian Church (USA) Washington Office, Public 
           Housing Authorities Directors Association (PHADA), 
           Public Justice Center, The United Methodist Church--
           General Board of Church and Society, Travelers Aid 
           International, United Cerebral Palsy, United Jewish 
           Communities (UJC).
                                  ____

                                   National Association of Housing


                                  and Redevelopment Officials,

                                    Washington, DC, July 12, 2007.
     Hon. Barney Frank,
     Chairman, Committee on Financial Services,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Maxine Waters,
     Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Housing and Community 
         Opportunity, Committee on Financial Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Spencer Bachus,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Financial Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Judy Biggert,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Housing and Community 
         Opportunity, House Committee on Financial Services, House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus: On behalf of 
     the board and members of the National Association of Housing 
     and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO), I am writing in regard 
     to your consideration of H.R. 1851, the Section 8 Voucher 
     Reform Act of 2007 (SEVRA). As passed by the House Financial 
     Services Committee and improved by the proposed Managers' 
     Amendment, NAHRO supports the passage of H.R. 1851.
       NAHRO applauds the co-sponsors of H.R. 1851 and the 
     Financial Services Committee as a whole for bringing this 
     important and necessary piece of legislation to the floor for 
     consideration by the full House of Representatives. We also 
     applaud the bipartisan spirit with which this bill has been 
     developed over many months of informed and responsible 
     debate. The provisions now embedded in SEVRA, as passed by 
     the Committee and improved by the Managers' Amendment, will 
     enhance and strengthen the quality and administration of the 
     Section 8 voucher program in responsible and tangible ways.
       Most importantly, SEVRA stabilizes the Section 8 voucher 
     program, the administration of which, starting in 2004 under 
     HUD's PIH Notice 2004-7, has been negatively impacted by 
     virtue of a funding distribution formula that has taken 
     appropriated dollars and dispersed them across diverse 
     housing markets without regard to the number of families 
     leased or current voucher costs in each community. The 
     budget-based/block grant-oriented voucher distribution 
     formula in place from FY 2004-FY 2006 has funded some 
     communities over their authorized voucher level, while 
     dramatically under-funding others. As a direct result of this 
     voucher funding formula, at least 150,000 authorized vouchers 
     have been lost nationwide to low-income households who could 
     have otherwise leased or purchased housing under the program. 
     The funding formula in H.R. 1851, which builds on the prior 
     calendar year funding formula enacted in the FY 2007 
     Continuing Resolution (PL. 110-5), further corrects this 
     situation and, more significantly, will over time help 
     restore nationwide leasing levels to their historic high pre-
     FY 2004 thresholds.
       There are several additional items included in H.R. 1851 
     that represent important and positive steps forward in the 
     administration of the Section 8 voucher program. These 
     include:
       HAP Funding Policies: In order to adjust to the change in 
     funding formula as noted above, SEVRA contains provisions 
     that create an important transitional mechanism. The bill's 
     transitional mechanism would allow public housing agencies, 
     for a period of time and subject to certain limits, to retain 
     and use their unobligated fund balances. This is particularly 
     important in light of HUD's delayed implementation of 
     agencies' FY 2007 funding amounts.
       Administrative Fees: We support the restoration of the 
     post-QHWRA administrative fee structure and rates with 
     improved inflation factors, special fees, fees for each 
     issued voucher, and equitable fees under the Project-Based 
     Voucher (PBV) assistance program for agency-owned units.
       Annual Leasing: NAHRO supports the provision in SEVRA that 
     will enable agencies to serve additional families with 
     available funds, while still maintaining the voucher 
     program's overall connection to authorized vouchers.
       Housing Quality Inspections of Dwelling Units: NAHRO 
     supports the provision in SEVRA that will allow housing 
     agencies, at their discretion, to complete annual inspections 
     of all their voucher assisted units every two years. This 
     provision will reaffirm the discretionary authority of a 
     local housing agency to perform annual inspections on a 
     geographic basis rather than tying inspections to each 
     household's lease anniversary. We also support the provision 
     allowing housing agencies, at their discretion, to approve a 
     dwelling unit in lieu of its own Housing Quality Standards 
     (HQS) inspection when a comparable inspection is performed by 
     other governmental entities. Finally, we support allowing 
     housing agencies, at their discretion, to enable eligible 
     voucher households to move into a unit and tender an initial 
     subsidy payment, so long as an HQS inspection does not reveal 
     that health or safety violations are present and repairs are 
     made within 30 days.
       In sum, H.R. 1851 improves important elements of both the 
     Section 8 voucher and public housing programs. We again 
     congratulate you on the steps you have taken thus far and 
     look forward to continuing to work with you and your Senate 
     colleagues to develop and pass a pragmatic and necessary 
     piece of legislation that encourages the highest and best use 
     of precious federal funds to help meet the well-documented 
     need for decent, safe and affordable housing in our 
     communities.
           Sincerely,
     Saul N. Ramirez, Jr.
                                  ____

                         Council of Large Public Housing Agencies,
                                    Washington, DC, July 12, 2007.
     Hon. Barney Frank,
     Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Maxine Waters,
     Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Housing and Community 
         Opportunity, Committee on Financial Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Hon. Spencer Bachus,

[[Page H7723]]

     Ranking Member, Committee on Financial Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Judy Biggert, Ranking Member,
     Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, Committee 
         on Financial Services, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Members of Congress: On behalf of the Council of Large 
     Public Housing Authorities (CLPHA), I am writing in support 
     of H.R. 1851, the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007 
     (SEVRA).
       SEVRA makes significant changes to the Section 8 Housing 
     Choice Voucher program and marks a significant step forward 
     in simplifying the administration and funding of the program. 
     Under your leadership, Congress has taken the initiative to 
     reform this much needed program which provides housing 
     assistance to two million of the lowest-income families. In 
     addition to other changes important to CLPHA, SEVRA improves 
     the current voucher funding formula, provides for rent 
     simplification and flexibility, clarifies program 
     eligibility, simplifies inspection requirements, and 
     authorizes a funding reserve.
       SEVRA is also critically important to CLPHA members and 
     other public housing authorities across the nation for the 
     expansion and far-reaching changes to the Housing Innovation 
     Program (HIP), renamed from Moving to Work. We appreciate 
     Congress making this program more broadly available to the 
     many housing authorities interested in participating in the 
     program.
       While SEVRA is not perfect, the underlying bill is sound 
     and we are pleased to offer our support. Again, we thank you 
     for undertaking this initiative, and we look forward to 
     working with you as the legislation continues to evolve and 
     as it moves forward in the legislative process.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Sunia Zaterman,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                    July 12, 2007.
     Hon. Barney Frank,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Frank: We are writing to encourage your 
     support of H.R. 1851 when it goes to the floor. The ``Section 
     8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007'' provides important changes to 
     a program that has served as the cornerstone of federal 
     affordable housing policy for more than 30 years.
       The undersigned groups worked with the Financial Services 
     Committee to ensure that the legislation addresses issues 
     fundamental to the continued success of the program, 
     including a viable funding formula and important changes to 
     streamline program operations.
       H.R. 1851 also addresses several issues that are of 
     particular interest to our organizations:
       Provides that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development (HUD) will be required to translate both its own 
     official vital documents as well as selected non-HUD property 
     documents into any language the Department identifies as 
     necessary, and provide a HUD-funded and HUD-administered 800 
     number for oral interpretation needs.
       Amends the inspection timeframes for apartments that will 
     be accepting voucher holders by eliminating unnecessary 
     delays and duplication, thereby encouraging increased 
     apartment owner participation.
       Provides important changes to the project-based voucher 
     program to ensure its flexibility as a tool for preserving or 
     expanding the supply of apartments affordable to low-income 
     families in many communities, particularly those with a tight 
     housing market.
       We are not able to support the Hensarling amendment as we 
     have not had sufficient time to review the impact of such 
     work requirements on all affected parties and request that it 
     be withdrawn.
       H.R. 1851 is expected to be on the House floor for a vote 
     today, July 12. We urge your support of this important 
     housing measure.
           Sincerely,
       American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging.
       Institute of Real Estate Management.
       National Affordable Housing Management Association.
       National Apartment Association.
       National Association of Home Builders.
       National Leased Housing Association.
       National Multi Housing Council.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 
3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny 
Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to the rule. It is not because of the final 
product, but the way in which the rule actually came about.
  I have worked closely with the chairman of the Financial Services 
Committee, and I know that he is a fair individual, and actually in 
committee he supported several of my amendments and gave us the 
opportunity to have that vote be held.
  It is no secret that we have an immigration crisis facing us in 
America. It is also no secret that Americans are angry. Like most 
Members, my office was flooded when the President and the Senate 
attempted to ram another amnesty immigration program down our throats.
  According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 56 percent of Americans 
surveyed support an ``enforcement only'' approach to immigration reform 
and 44 percent of Americans opposed the Senate's amnesty plan.
  Yesterday my colleagues and I offered several amendments that would 
bring accountability to the section 8 housing program under HUD. Not 
surprisingly, the majority broke their promise of openness in the House 
and yet again did not allow them to be considered by Members today.
  Americans work hard for their money and Americans are also very 
generous. We are not afraid to help fellow Americans. A roof over your 
head is one of the most basic human needs, and we are not afraid to 
spend tax dollars to help those that cannot provide for themselves. But 
what Americans refuse to do is give up their hard-earned tax dollars to 
people who sneak into our country illegally. The funds included in this 
bill must, let me repeat that, must only go to those who are here 
legally working in this country and paying taxes.
  However, the amendment my friend Mr. Price and I introduced would 
have ensured just that: Those receiving funds, taxpayer funds under 
section 8 are here in this country legally. Our amendment would have 
brought commonsense accountability to a program that clearly runs short 
of that right now. Yet the majority won't even allow Members to 
consider that amendment on the floor. What are they so afraid of?
  It is not even a full year into the majority's new regime, and I am 
already tired, and so are my constituents, of broken promises. I know 
Americans are also. If other Members are tired, then they should join 
us in voting against this rule that blocks these commonsense amendments 
like those of my colleagues.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio, Mrs. Tubbs Jones.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the 
gentlewoman for yielding time. I would like to thank the subcommittee 
Chair, Maxine Waters, for all her leadership and work on this; the 
Chair, Mr. Frank; and my old colleague from Ohio, Bob Ney for the work.
  I rise in support of H.R. 1851. In my district the problems with 
section 8 housing have bubbled to the surface, particularly in many of 
the inter-ring suburbs such as Bedford, Bedford Heights, Euclid, 
Cleveland Heights, and Shaker Heights. They have seen an increase in 
section 8 housing and are beginning to see a clash in culture between 
owners and renters, between those who have long time been owners and 
those who are new at renting property.
  It is very important that when we start to look at some of the urban 
centers, some of the older housing, we start looking at the inter-ring 
suburbs with older housing, and even the newer suburban municipalities, 
that we have an opportunity to reform how we have section 8 housing and 
how it is used. The reform provisions in this bill will not only open 
access to low-income Americans to rent and even buy, it will provide 
incentives so that the program can truly serve its purpose of 
empowering people to become self-sufficient.
  Certainly, as we have gone through this whole year or past 2 or 3 
years where we have had predatory lenders preying upon our communities, 
we want to be able to give those new homeowners an opportunity to 
understand what homeownership means, to understand what kind of 
situation they could put themselves in without the necessary education. 
But as important to owning a home is the ability to have a decent job, 
to be well trained, to take care of your family, et cetera. And through 
the proposals that are set forth in this program, I believe we will 
have an opportunity to see that come to fruition.
  This bill also includes a number of provisions designed to create 
other incentives.
  I am so proud to have an opportunity to stand on the floor of the 
House saying that section 8 is going to be more than it has been in the 
past, that it will reach its true fruition.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes

[[Page H7724]]

to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from 
Florida for his leadership on this issue and so many others.
  I rise opposed to this rule for process and policy reasons.
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, the new majority promised us and they 
promised the American people a fair and open process. But again, the 
majority has failed to live up to its promises, and now that it is out 
from under the spotlight of election-year promises, we see that they 
are few and far between.
  Before last year's election, Speaker Pelosi said, ``Because the 
debate has been limited and Americans' voices silenced by this 
restrictive rule, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.''
  And, Mr. Speaker, I agree. So what's changed? Is it political 
expediency or is it a broken promise?
  In December following last year's election, the distinguished 
majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, told the media that ``We intend to have a 
Rules Committee . . . that gives opposition voices and alternative 
proposals the ability to be heard and considered on the floor of the 
House.''
  Mr. Speaker, where is the commitment to that promise, with only six 
of 23 amendments made in order? What has changed, Mr. Speaker? Is it 
political expediency or is it a broken promise?
  Mr. Speaker, the Rules chairman, Ms. Slaughter, has said, ``If we 
want to foster democracy in this body, we should take the time and the 
thoughtfulness to debate all major legislation under an open rule, not 
just appropriations bills . . . an open process should be the norm, not 
the exception.''
  Mr. Speaker, what's changed? Is it political expediency or is it a 
broken promise?
  Rules Committee member Mr. McGovern has said, ``I would say to my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if you want to show some 
bipartisanship, if you want to promote a process that has some 
integrity, then this should be an open rule. All Members should have an 
opportunity to come here and offer amendments to this bill to improve 
the quality of the deliberations on this House floor. They should be 
able to come and offer amendments to clean up this place.''
  Well, Mr. Speaker, what's changed? Is it political expediency or is 
it a broken promise?
  Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel has said, ``Let's have an up-
and-down vote. Don't be scared. Do not hide behind some little rule. 
Come on out here. Put it out on the table and let's have a vote . . . 
So don't hide behind the rule. If this is what you want to do, let's 
have an up-and-down vote. You can put your votes right up there . . . 
and then the American people can see what it is all about.''
  So what has changed, Mr. Speaker? Is it political expediency or is it 
a broken promise?
  Mr. Speaker, I am also very curious as to what has happened with the 
distinguished chairman and my friend on the Financial Services 
Committee. In the past, not only has he been a vocal advocate for open 
rules to the legislation that he has brought to the floor, but the new 
majority has spared him no effort to applaud him for doing so. In fact, 
Chairman Frank was such a firm believer in allowing debate, allowing 
consideration of amendments, that Representative Welch of Vermont felt 
so moved to say, ``All of us applaud the work of Chairman Frank for 
recommending an open rule to this bill . . . ''
  But, Mr. Speaker, that was on a previous bill. So I would ask what's 
changed. What is the chairman afraid of? Because it certainly appears 
that he has lost his passion for an open and a fair process.
  In a letter dated July 9, 2007, to the Chair of the House Committee 
on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, Chairman Frank urged that the Rules Committee 
``provide a structured amendment process.'' So what's changed, Mr. 
Speaker? What's changed?

                              {time}  1845

  The Rules Committee Web site lists 23 amendments submitted for 
consideration, yet only six were made in order. So what's so scary 
about the other 17? What's so scary?
  Mr. Speaker, I submitted three amendments not made in order by this 
draconian and restrictive rule. My first amendment would have applied 
pay-as-you-go spending rules to this bill that CBO has said will have a 
net cost of $2.4 billion over the next 5 years. Remember Democrats' 
promise to use PAYGO rules for everything; instead, they're picking and 
choosing when to do so. At home we call that breaking a rule and 
breaking a promise.
  The second amendment, Mr. Speaker, is clearly a substantive one. It 
would have prevented, as the gentlelady from Florida said, prevented 
illegal immigrants from receiving assistance under the section 8 
program by providing all adults to provide secure identification before 
receiving assistance. It's the kind of commonsense amendment that the 
Financial Services Committee has applied before. It has also been 
accepted by the full House on other legislation.
  The third amendment would have helped clarify a new requirement for 
public housing authorities. This bill provides that the public housing 
authorities have to report rental payments as alternative data to the 
credit bureaus. Rental payment information is clearly different than 
other forms of commerce and may need to be treated differently in order 
to ensure accuracy of credit reporting.
  These were three thoughtful and substantive amendments which deserved 
the consideration of all 435 Members of the House, but they were denied 
that opportunity, Mr. Speaker, by this restrictive and draconian rule.
  Mr. Speaker, back home in my district, rules aren't rules if you only 
follow them when you want to. Democrats promised to use a fair and open 
process for everything. Instead, they're picking and choosing. And when 
you pick and choose to do so, it's called breaking a rule and breaking 
a promise.
  So I urge the new majority to rededicate itself to its campaign 
promises of a fair and open process. We should allow this Chamber to 
work its will on all legislation. An open process shouldn't just be 
something that's just talked about solely on the campaign trail. What 
amendment was so scary that it ought not be included in this 
discussion?
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule so that we may have a 
complete, open and fair debate. The American people deserve and expect 
no less.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats are going to keep their 
promise to the American people by fighting for affordable housing.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and 
just say this is an incredibly important bill. It will expand the 
number of units of affordable housing and expand the number of vouchers 
to over 100,000. That's extremely important to the American people.
  And in response to the gentleman, if he cared so much about his 
amendment, he should have offered it during the committee. Chairman 
Frank and Subcommittee Chairwoman Waters held hearings and thoroughly 
discussed every amendment. The committee met for 2 complete days and 
thoroughly discussed every amendment. If the gentleman wanted and cared 
about his amendment, he should have put it forward before the 
committee.
  The rule is very fair. Out of the six amendments that had have been 
accepted, three are Republican, one is bipartisan, and the other is a 
bipartisan manager's amendment. So the gentleman is not looking at what 
is the real issue. The real issue is providing affordable housing that 
is desperately needed in our country. Many families are facing the 
increased cost of living, and there is a lack of affordable housing. I 
object strenuously to the facts in the statement by my good friend on 
the other side of the aisle.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1853, the Section 8 Voucher 
Reform Act of 2007 (SEVRA). This bill comes before the House at a 
critical time.
  Right now too many Americans face the double onslaught of stagnant 
wages and ever increasing costs of living, including a critical lack of 
affordable housing. That is why it is so important to send a strong 
message to our constituents that we support stable, safe and affordable 
communities.
  Affordable housing is a critical component of this, and Section 8 
housing vouchers provide vital rental assistance for low-income 
families, seniors, and the disabled. I am pleased to report that this 
legislation comes to the floor with

[[Page H7725]]

the strong bipartisan support of the Financial Services Committee which 
passed this bill in May by a vote of 52-9.
  This bill makes a number of changes to the Section 8 voucher, 
project-based and public housing programs. Specifically this bill:
  Makes the Voucher Funding Formula More Efficient. The bill reforms 
the formula used to allocate Section 8 voucher funds to housing 
agencies to increase the number of families receiving vouchers.
  Creates 100,000 New Vouchers. We authorize 20,000 new incremental 
vouchers a year over each of the next 5 years.
  The Bill Promotes Homeownership. By allowing families to use housing 
vouchers as a down-payment on a first-time home purchase.
  Encourages economic self-sufficiency for low income voucher and 
public housing families. H.R. 1851 includes a number of provisions 
designed to create incentives for families to obtain employment, 
increase earned income, pursue higher education, and save for 
retirement. No longer will our voucher formula discourage and penalize 
a voucher holder from seeking and obtaining employment.
  Protects Tenants. The bill preserves the rights of voucher families 
to move to other areas, it addresses excessive voucher rent burdens, 
provides for more accurate fair market rent calculations to protect 
voucher holders in units that are in need of repair.
  Stronger families and communities are a key part of the Democrats' 
New Direction for America. This bill strongly aids this goal.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from 
Georgia did offer this amendment in committee, and it was rejected. 
What he wanted was to be able to present it before the full House. And 
he was pointing out that the promise that had been made by the majority 
was that there would be more openness during the consideration of 
legislation such as this. And that's what the gentleman from Georgia 
was trying to point out.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished leader on this issue and many others, the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in reluctant opposition to this rule 
governing the consideration of H.R. 1851.
  I had hoped that the committee would see the wisdom in providing an 
important open rule on this important legislation; and in the absence 
of an open rule, that it would at least make in order those amendments 
that Members took the time and effort to draft. Unfortunately, of the 
23 amendments filed with the Rules Committee, only six were made in 
order. While I'm pleased that the majority of those amendments are 
Republican amendments, the other Republican and Democratic amendments 
deserved to be debated and given a full and fair hearing.
  Section 8 vouchers are tenant-based as well as project-based 
subsidies that low-income families use in the private market to lower 
their rental cost to 30 percent of their incomes. The program has grown 
to replace public housing as the primary tool for subsidizing the 
housing costs of low-income families.
  Through this program, HUD provides portable subsidies to individuals, 
tenant-based, who are seeking rental housing from qualified and 
approved owners, and provide subsidies to private property owners who 
set aside some or all of their units for low-income families. This is 
project-based.
  The section 8 program began in 1974 primarily as a project-based 
rental assistance program. However, in the mid-1980s project-based 
assistance came under criticism for being too costly and for 
concentrating poor families in high-poverty areas. Consequently, in 
1983, Congress stopped providing new project-based section 8 contracts 
and created vouchers as a new form of assistance.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill reflects a bipartisan effort led by Chairman 
Frank, Chairwoman Waters and Republican members of the committee. In 
fact, this bill enjoyed substantial Republican support in the Financial 
Services Committee. I am an original cosponsor, along with Mr. Shays.
  During committee deliberation, we were given the opportunity to 
debate and consider a variety of issues pertaining to this bill. 
Members on our side of the aisle had hoped to be given the same 
opportunity to debate important issues on the House floor. For example, 
the amendment filed by my colleagues, Mr. Price, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite, 
Mrs. Capito and Mr. Campbell, requiring proper documentation when 
seeking section 8 Federal assistance was not made in order. This is an 
important amendment, and I would have hoped we would have the 
opportunity to debate that issue fully.
  There were other amendments filed my by colleagues, Congressmen 
Chabot, King and Wicker, that I think deserve to be considered by the 
full House. These Members do not serve on the Financial Services 
Committee and should have been given the chance to offer amendments 
crucial to their constituents and districts.
  Republicans support many aspects of H.R. 1851, but we all deserve the 
right to participate in the amendment process, whether as members of 
the committee of jurisdiction or as a Member of the U.S. House of 
Representatives. Only through an open rule is that possible. For this 
reason, as a supporter of this legislation, I rise in reluctant 
opposition to the rule.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the gentlelady for yielding, 
and also for your leadership, and for bringing together today a very 
fair rule.
  I rise in strong support of this rule and in strong support of this 
bill, the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007. And I want to commend, 
first of all, our committee chairman, Mr. Frank, and our subcommittee 
chairwoman, Congresswoman Waters, for their leadership and for their 
hard work in crafting this bill.
  As a former member of the Financial Services Committee, actually a 
member of Congresswoman Waters' Subcommittee on Housing, I had the 
opportunity to work with my colleagues on earlier versions of this 
bill, and this end product contains many important updated provisions. 
For example, this bill permits families to use housing vouchers as a 
down payment on a first-time home purchase. The goal of home ownership 
is necessary to help stabilize family units, promote gainful 
employment, and restore pride and dignity to many low-income families. 
It is the primary path to wealth accumulation in America for ordinary 
folks who don't have stock accounts and who can't play in the stock 
market and on Wall Street. It's the way to achieve the American Dream 
for most folks in America. And so home ownership is extremely 
important, and this bill offers that opportunity.
  It also offers a number of changes that protect and benefit tenants. 
Examples include the portability provisions that preserve voucher 
families' ability to move to other areas as they determine. They 
deserve that right and should be able to do that. It provides for more 
accurate and fair market rent calculation. And it also protects voucher 
holders in units that are in need of repairs.
  Section 8 housing vouchers provide the security of affordable housing 
to many low-income families, the elderly, people with disabilities, and 
others who need this type of rental assistance. This leads to stronger 
families and safer communities, and it does prevent homelessness.
  There is a housing crisis in America. This bill is a major step 
forward in addressing it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege 
to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Knollenberg).
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to provide some perspective on the effect H.R. 
1851 will have on discretionary spending and on the appropriations 
process. If we're not careful, we will be opening the door to a huge 
new spending at uncontrollable rates.
  The section 8 voucher program has proved widely successful and 
popular. But there is also wide consensus that we must provide reform 
to the program, which I agree with. We all want the program to be 
effective, provide assistance to those truly in need and be fiscally 
responsible for American taxpayers.
  First, I want to point out, there are positive reforms in H.R. 1851. 
The bill increases the number of PHAs allowed

[[Page H7726]]

to participate in the Moving to Work Program. This program, renamed in 
the bill as the Housing Innovation Program, gives PHAs flexibility to 
design and test methods that achieve efficiency, reduce costs and 
promote self-sufficiency.
  The bill also enhances HUD's Family Self-Sufficiency Act program 
which works to give low-income families the skills and experience 
needed to become economically independent.
  I do, however, have major concerns with the provisions in H.R. 1851 
that abandons the budget-based funding methodology. Going back to the 
flawed unit-based methodology like this bill proposes is a recipe for 
budgetary disaster.
  A unit-based system lacks incentives for PHAs to maximize assistance 
to needy families within a fixed budget. A unit-based formula system 
that includes costs incurred as well as units put under lease simply 
tells PHAs to lease at whatever cost they want, even if it is more than 
the market rate and the market price for the same unit. We already know 
what that can mean. We have experience with a unit-based approach and 
have seen what it means.
  In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the Appropriations Committee shifted 
to a unit-based funding to spur leasing, and the result was 
skyrocketing per unit cost and total funding requirements that 
increased by 40 percent, from $9 billion to $13 billion, in 2 years. In 
2005, a budget-based system was reinstituted.
  We, as appropriators, can simply not afford to see a similar increase 
in the future. Today, in total, the section 8 program has grown to 
consume 60 percent of HUD's budget. Going back to a unit-based program 
will only increase that percentage. Simply put, as the Housing Voucher 
Program takes up more of HUD's budget, there will be less we will have 
for other housing programs.
  As the former chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee for HUD, 
and as the current chairman will attest, the growing Housing Voucher 
Program is forcing Congress to choose between section 8 vouchers and 
other important HUD priorities. That includes programs that support 
first-time ownership, home ownership, homeless facilities, and care and 
housing for the elderly and the disabled.
  And then there is this Community Development Block Grant, which I 
believe virtually every Member supports because they hear from their 
mayor, the city council and from the county administrators on how the 
program makes their community better. If we're not careful, these 
programs will face deep cuts in future years just to accommodate the 
section 8 increases.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a work in progress. It has been improved in 
committee, and I believe amendments before us today can improve it 
further. I am hopeful that as the bill works its way through into the 
legislative process, we can improve it even more.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all 
the distinguished colleagues who have participated in this debate. 
Obviously this is a very, very important piece of legislation that is 
being brought forth today.
  We have concerns with regard to the process, not in the creation of 
the legislation itself but in the way in which it has been brought 
forth to the floor and the rule that brings the legislation to the 
floor and establishes the terms of debate for the legislation.
  I think it has been a good debate. I think we've been able to express 
certainly our concern with the process, as well as in the case of most 
Members that I have certainly heard on this debate, the evident 
awareness of the importance of the underlying legislation and the issue 
dealt with by the underlying legislation.
  Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to thank, on behalf of the 
folks I represent back home in Florida and all Americans, express my 
thanks to Chairwoman Maxine Waters and to Chairman Barney Frank for 
standing up and fighting for America's families and affordable housing.
  I urge my colleagues to continue the American tradition of promoting 
the American Dream and turning that dream into a reality for decent, 
safe, clean and affordable housing, particularly for the elderly, the 
disabled, veterans in our community, domestic violence victims and all 
families.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on 
the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________