[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.
____________________