[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 7 (Thursday, January 17, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H302-H329]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HOPE VI IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 922 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3524.
{time} 1041
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 3524) to reauthorize the HOPE VI program for revitalization of
severely distressed public housing, and for other purposes, with Ms.
Solis in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and the gentlewoman from
West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise in support of H.R. 3524, the HOPE VI Improvement and
Reauthorization Act of 2007. As you know, I introduced H.R. 3524 on
September 11 of 2007.
I want to thank each of my colleagues both on the Committee on
Financial Services and in the House who have joined with me to see that
this important legislation passes the House. I want to especially thank
Chairman Barney Frank, Melvin Watt, and Christopher Shays for their
original coauthorship, cosponsorship, and support of H.R. 3524.
In drafting this bill, we worked closely with the minority, resident
organizations, housing advocacy groups, public housing agencies,
housing developers, bankers, green building experts, and practitioners,
and other Members with an interest in the HOPE VI program. The end
result is a bill that I believe takes into account the needs of
residents, the community, the investors and lenders, and our public
housing managers. Most importantly, we have a bill that preserves and
revitalizes our public housing stock.
H.R. 3524 reauthorizes and improves the HOPE VI public housing
revitalization program by requiring the one-for-one replacement of all
demolished public housing units, providing residents with meaningful
and substantive involvement in the planning and development of the HOPE
VI plan, expanding community and supportive services from 15 percent of
grants that amount to 25 percent of grant amount; prohibiting HOPE VI
specific screening criteria so that public housing residents and HOPE
VI aren't held to a higher standard than non-HOPE VI residents,
requiring housing agencies to monitor and track the whereabouts of
relocated families, and mandating that developments be built in
accordance with green building standards.
Public housing residents, including those not yet impacted by HOPE
VI, and housing advocates have said that this bill has been a long time
in coming, and I agree with them. I would like to note why the bill
before us today is so important.
First, it preserves public housing. The administration eliminated the
one-for-one replacement requirement in 1996, effectively triggering a
national sloughing off of our Nation's public housing inventory.
Housing authorities have consistently built back fewer units than
they have torn down and, as a result, over 30,000 units have been lost
as a direct result of the HOPE VI program. Stopping this bleeding was
paramount in the drafting of this legislation. One-for-one replacement
is not only a part of the bill; it is the heart of this bill. Limiting
one-for-one to only occupied units does a disservice to families on
waiting lists and to families waiting to get on waiting lists. Public
housing is a community resource, and units can be unoccupied because
they are not fit for humans to live in. That does not mean that there
is no need for them.
Second, because of strict screening criteria, HOPE VI has become
limited to the cream of the public housing crop. Some people think that
the HOPE VI development represents a new and better community and
should have new and better people. However, as a Congress, we must be
clear that public housing is for the most in need, not just the easiest
to serve.
{time} 1045
HOPE VI projects have programs and services that can greatly benefit
our neediest families.
In addition, in the drive to separate the wheat from the chaff,
public housing agencies have implemented screening criteria that are
nothing short of draconian. These criteria include everything from
credit checks, home visits, work requirements, and other criteria that
many nonpublic housing residents would be unable to meet. We must
reject any attempt to continue to punish public housing residents for
being poor and must continue to provide them with the tools, through
programs like HOPE VI, to assist them in improving their lives.
Lastly, I would like to talk about why green building standards
should be mandatory in HOPE VI developments. Our public housing was
built poorly and inefficiently. Many of our developments are wasteful
and hazardous to the health of the residents, and many investments we
make in public housing developments, which will be around for the next
40 years, should ensure that this housing is safe, sound, energy
efficient and good for the environment. This is just good public
policy. We owe it to our public housing residents and to the
environment to make sure that we do not recreate the inefficient and
harmful mistakes that went into building many of these developments in
the first place.
This bill has the support of over 145 resident organizations: the
National Low-Income Housing Coalition, the National Alliance to End
Homelessness, the National Housing Law Project, the Community Builders,
Bank of America, the Housing Justice Network, the Corporation for
Supportive Housing, and others. There are a lot of good things in this
bill, and these groups recognize this.
Specifically, regarding the green building provisions, although one
group is not supportive, over 30 organizations, including the U.S.
Conference of Mayors, the American Public Health Association, the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, the National Low-Income
Housing Coalition, the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, and
others, have voiced their overwhelming support for the green building
requirements in the bill.
We have crafted a bill that is good for residents, housing
authorities, and communities. I urge you not to be blindsided by
threats from third parties and to support our Nation's low-income
families and to preserve our housing stock.
Madam Chairman, I would like to say in closing that this should be a
bill that receives support from both sides of the aisle. This is the
kind of bill that we can truly come together around. Everyone
recognizes that it is needed in all communities, rural and urban,
suburban, all over the United States.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CAPITO. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Today's HOPE VI program is the direct result of the 1992 report
submitted to Congress by the National Commission on Severely Distressed
Public Housing that said approximately 6 percent of the 1.4 million
existing public housing apartments were severely distressed and
recommended that they be removed from the housing stock.
Since Congress began appropriating funds for HOPE VI in 1992, the
program has been revitalizing and replacing some of the most dangerous
and dilapidated public housing units in the country with mixed-income
communities. These grants play a vital role in a community's
redevelopment and have changed the physical characteristics of public
housing from high-rise tenements to attractive, marketable units that
blend in with the surrounding neighborhood and help residents attain
self-sufficiency.
[[Page H303]]
While the goals of the program are to be commended, and HOPE VI
projects remain popular with many Members of Congress, it is not
without faults. The HOPE VI program has been criticized by the
administration, which argues that grantees spend their money too
slowly, and by tenant advocates, who claim the program displaces more
families than it houses in new developments. Also, there are those who
argue that HOPE VI is not an efficient method for meeting the current
and future capital needs of public housing programs.
The bill we are considering today, H.R. 3524, makes several
significant changes to the underlying program. I want to commend
Chairman Frank, Chairwoman Waters, and Congressman Shays for their
bipartisan work on this bill. I know that Congressman Shays has worked
hard to address some of the concerns raised by HUD and by those on this
side of the aisle regarding the bill. Certainly, the manager's
amendment moves in the right direction. However, there are still
several areas of disagreement on this legislation, such as the
elimination of demolition-only grants, implementing one-for-one
replacement requirements, and mandating HOPE VI developers comply with
the Green Communities Green Building Rating System.
The HOPE VI program has been a program that has worked. Through
public-private partnerships, we have changed the physical shape of
public housing by establishing positive incentives for resident self-
sufficiency and comprehensive services that empower residents. We must
take care not to make this program so prescriptive that developers and
nonprofits find the program too difficult in which to participate.
Several years ago, I spoke at the opening ceremonies at Orchard Manor
in Charleston, West Virginia. Orchard Manor is now a beautiful complex
of townhouses, duplexes and apartments that began its transformation
from a rundown public housing project with the removal of 230 out of
the existing 360 units under a HUD HOPE VI demolition-only grant.
Following the initial demolition, additional units were constructed
using replacement housing funds until the complex reached its present
state. Orchard Manor is a shining example of the importance and
significance of using demolition-only grants as part of HOPE VI. The
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) has an amendment that will
reinstate HUD's ability to fund demolition-only grants, and I urge its
adoption so future successful projects, such as Orchard Manor, can
receive that funding.
Finally, I plan to offer an amendment that I believe is a commonsense
approach to green building requirements outlined in this legislation. I
am concerned that Congress is attempting to mandate this program.
Building green is a good thing. Mandating how to do it by a private
building standard, I believe there are other ways to do it, which is
essentially the heart of my amendment.
Specifically, the green building requirements in the bill could lead
to fewer affordable housing units being built. My amendment still
requires minimum green building standards, but it directs the Secretary
to select an appropriate green building rating system standard or code
that addresses environmental soundness but leaves that flexibility for
the Secretary to determine other criteria as appropriate.
We are currently experiencing rapid development in our definition of
what constitutes a legitimate ``green building standard'' through the
competition of differing ideas. This competition is a healthy one, and
we should not cut short through a hasty endorsement of one of the
competing proprietary standards as our definition.
In closing, the HOPE VI program is not a cure-all for the
rehabilitation and capital improvement needs of public housing units.
However, this House has the opportunity with this bill, through several
amendments, to further develop a program that rehabilitates our public
housing into affordable, mixed-income communities.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to Mr. Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentlewoman who chairs the
Housing Subcommittee for the time and for her very creative and
diligent work on this bill and others. And I also want to acknowledge
our new ranking member of the Housing Subcommittee, the gentlewoman
from West Virginia.
Let me begin by noting that obviously in the parliamentary forum we
focus on areas of difference. Members should note how small those are
relatively in the context of this bill. This is a significant rewrite
of the HOPE VI program in which there was not a lot of objection. In
fact, I think every amendment but one that was offered was made in
order. I disagree with several of the amendments, but I do want to
stress the commonality of reform that is in here as we go forward.
There are two basic areas of difference. Two amendments on the other
side of the aisle from the two gentlemen from Texas would reduce the
requirement that with Federal money we replace low-income units that we
destroy. Yes, there are low-income units that should be eliminated as
they now exist, but that does not mean that the total number of housing
units available for lower-income people ought to be diminished as a
conscious Federal policy. And the amendments of my two colleagues from
Texas would do that.
The Sessions amendment would allow the Federal Government to give
people money simply to tear down all of the houses that poor people
live in in a particular area on the grounds that those weren't very
nice houses. No doubt in many cases they are not nice houses, but the
poor people who live in those houses didn't decide voluntarily to live
in bad housing as opposed to nice housing. They had nowhere else to go.
And if you tear down where they now are and build zero in its place,
you have exacerbated the housing crisis.
Similarly, the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer)
would diminish our capacity. We say if you tear them down, you have to
replace them. You don't replace them in the same place. You can do it
in a much broader area with more flexibility. You have 4\1/2\ years to
replace the ones you have torn down and may go to the Secretary of HUD
and get a waiver, say there is a court order, there is this land
shortage. Some of these were, in fact, so useless. There are a lot of
reasons you can go to the Secretary of HUD. So we are not saying that
the one-for-one has to be followed in every case. We do say that should
be the standard.
Here is the problem with the Neugebauer amendment. He says the
housing authorities only have to replace units that they tear down that
were occupied. Most people who run housing authorities are diligent,
hardworking people in difficult circumstances, but there is
incompetence in some housing authorities. People who have incompetently
been unable to rent housing for one reason or another shouldn't be
rewarded by then being allowed to tear that housing down.
In other words, if housing authorities, who have the obligation to
use the money available to house people, refuse to do that or are
unable to do that, we should not reward them by saying then you don't
have to build those. And there will be places where people don't like
poor people living in their community, and the political leadership of
that community could then order the housing authority to leave some of
those units vacant, and then we will apply for a HOPE VI grant and we
will be able to replace far fewer because we will be rewarded for
leaving them vacant.
The gentlewoman from West Virginia's amendment, and again there is
some common agreement that we should go towards encouraging green
building, but here is the difference. I know the homebuilders say this
is bad for them, but understand, this is a Federal program with Federal
money. We are not talking here about imposing on private-sector
developers any requirement whatsoever to do energy efficiency. We are
here as the landlord, not as the regulator.
What we are saying is that we are the Federal Government and we will
set an example. We will take the money that we, the Federal Government,
makes available, and hold ourselves to a high energy efficiency
standard. If people think that is inappropriate and it is too
expensive, they don't have to apply to come here. That leaves everyone
in the private sector free to do as they wish.
[[Page H304]]
Beyond that, one of the strongest advocates of this has been my
colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the chairman of the
Appropriations Subcommittee. He has to fund all of this, and he has to
fund it going forward. We don't simply build the HOPE VI projects and
walk away. We don't. The builders do. It is not their fault.
If I am the contractor to build the buildings, my obligation is
completed the day I have done the building and gotten the money for it.
But we, the Federal Government, then have to fund it on an ongoing
basis. What we are saying is, as the landlord, we want to build it in a
way that makes it energy efficient going forward.
We will take an up-front cost because, over time, over 20 and 30 and
40 years, we will reduce our operating budget. So we are being told
that as the landlord we can't make the decision about how efficiently
to use funds and how to say we will reduce costs going forward. So I
would hope that the gentlewoman's amendment is defeated. It would take
it from a mandatory to one factor among many.
We also have an argument about the standard. We do mention one
standard. The homebuilders are wrong in their letter where they talk
about the LEED standard. That is out of the bill in the manager's
amendment.
{time} 1100
On the green communities, we do mention the green community standard;
but we explicitly give the Secretary of HUD the ability to propose
another standard if it is equivalent in energy savings, and that's the
key.
So the amendment of the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito)
makes this one factor among many, not a required factor, and everything
we do with our money to be energy efficient.
And, secondly, she would allow a much weaker standard in many cases
than ours does. So we allow flexibility, but flexibility as to how to
achieve the goal of energy efficiency, not flexibility as to how much
energy efficiency to offer.
I hope the bill, as essentially presented, or a couple of amendments
I think are relatively noncontroversial, are accepted.
Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to respond just a little bit to the
gentleman's comments on the amendment I'm going to put forward. I don't
want the misunderstanding of the Members to think that my amendment
would remove green building from any of the HOPE VI projects. It's a
different philosophy in how we're putting forth the idea to meet green
standards. And he clarified that. His is a mandatory. Mine is a
flexible, one among many. But I do believe in the philosophy of
building more green and more efficient buildings, we've got new
technology coming online. Why tie ourselves to a certain standard?
At this point I would like to recognize Mr. Gilchrest for 3 minutes,
the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. GILCHREST. I'm not on the committee of jurisdiction where the
HOPE project originated, but I'm interested in this issue because I was
born in what would now be called a housing project, 62 years ago. It
was a housing apartment complex built many decades ago, a few years
before I was born, for young families, for soldiers serving in World
War II and certainly then, for the baby boom generation, for military
people coming home looking for places to live.
This place was called Cora Place. Now I still don't know to this day
whether it was a K or a C, Cora Place. But it was a vast housing unit
apartment complex for young families. I was born there 62 years ago,
and there's still young families there. That place has still survived
all these decades. It was built adequately. It was built with good
construction techniques. It was built with good standards. It was not
rebuilt. It was not demolished and rebuilt. It was built in a way, in a
form, in a complex where it became a community, not an isolated pocket
of poverty. It was built for a community. There are small businesses
there. The standards of construction were fine. You don't waste heat.
You don't waste water. You don't waste electricity. It was built for
young American families. It was built for a community where there could
be dignity, where there could be small businesses, where people could
come together and exchange information and feel like they belonged.
That's what we need to do today. That's what HOPE VI is all about.
That's what this committee, in a bipartisan fashion, wants to pursue.
I also want to talk about one of the provisions in this bill called
``green buildings and technical assistance.'' And I want to say that
what this does to today's communities is what happened 62 years ago. We
want to do it right the first time, not the second time. The Federal
Government is not requiring one standard. The Federal Government, in
this bill, is requiring a standard that is flexible so it can change
and provide for new technology.
This is a standard that reduces and eliminates waste. It's a standard
that promotes local businesses and local communities. It's a standard
that provides adequate housing for those who otherwise would not have
adequate housing. The high cost of housing has increased the high cost
of renting, and the peripheral outside effect is that it has increased
homelessness.
So HOPE VI goes a long way into eliminating that problem in our
communities. It is not a mandate to comply with one standard. It does
not, this text in this bill, create a monopoly. It does not require
certification fees. You save way more energy, way more energy than up-
front costs. And it uses standards of efficiency that are off-the-shelf
technology. So I encourage my colleagues to vote for the bill.
Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, hardworking
member of our subcommittee, Congressman Sires, 2 minutes.
Mr. SIRES. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3524, the HOPE
VI Improvement Reauthorization Act of 2007.
As a former mayor in New Jersey, I have a unique perspective of this
program. Its impact on local communities is real and is positive.
Beyond the obvious impact of cleaning up distressed public housing
units and providing people with housing, HOPE VI generates economic
activity in the community. New housing brings new residents. New
residents bring new infrastructure and spurs new businesses. These new
residents shop and dine and invest in their community. The new
businesses hire employees, which has a positive impact on the economy.
The benefits of this program do not end there. Research indicates
that HOPE VI increases per capita income of residents and decreases
unemployment rates. That same research shows that this program
decreases the number of households receiving public assistance and
decreases violent crimes in surrounding communities.
A reauthorization of this HOPE VI is long overdue. I applaud the
efforts of the chairman and Chairwoman Waters for bringing this to the
floor today.
And I will share a story. I recently visited in Elizabeth, New
Jersey, part of my district, a program of HOPE VI. I knew that area
before, and the transformation is beyond. As I went there the other
day, a new restaurant opened up. People were hired to work in that
restaurant. So this program does work. Is it perfect? Nothing is
perfect, but it certainly works. And I hope that everybody supports
this.
Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Chairman, I would now like to yield 9 minutes to
the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Bachus of Alabama.
Mr. BACHUS. Since HOPE VI, we've had a lot of success. I think the
program is a success. How the program has been a success is not as
simple as simply replacing units on-site. In fact, most of the
residents of these housing projects have actually moved to other
communities through vouchers. The main thing, I think, to remember is
that it has eliminated some of the most dangerous and distressed public
housing in the country and created livable, mixed-income communities;
and that's very good.
To date, there have been over 200 HOPE VI grants, and to various
housing agencies. Almost all of them have been a success. These grants
have been used to fund public/private partnerships that have changed
landscapes once populated by failed housing projects and crime-ridden
neighborhoods into vibrant mixed-income, mixed-use communities,
providing quality, affordable housing for those in need.
I think anybody on the Financial Services Committee who's attended
these public hearings has heard the testimony of the living conditions
that
[[Page H305]]
these tenants in public housing were living under. High crime areas,
vandalism, dilapidated conditions, paint peeling off, lead, plumbing
that didn't work, electricity that didn't work, heating that was
inadequate, areas where there was such a concentration of crime that
many of the youth growing up in those communities really had no or very
few role models.
In my home State of Alabama, there are several examples of projects
where HOPE VI has made a tremendous difference. For example, Park Place
is a 12-block section of downtown Birmingham that a HOPE VI grant has
transformed into an attractive, mixed-income housing development. Not
only has it decreased the concentration of low-income residents living
in a crime-infested area with very few prospects of jobs, but it's also
improved the surrounding communities. The surrounding communities, the
property values were going down. It was more dangerous. And those areas
have been improved. The commercial district downtown has improved. One
of the stories that we need to realize is not only the improvement that
we see in the community that was replaced or rehabilitated, but the
community around it.
But most residents, if you track where they've gone, they have
chosen, through vouchers, and a lot of them just by simply turning down
housing assistance, they've moved to other communities, and they're
doing quite well. They've moved to communities where they think there
are better schools. The students of those residents who have actually
moved and not returned, they're doing better, on the average, than
those residents who chose to return.
In New Orleans, we actually found a lot of people chose not to go
back to the original community because they did not trust the public
housing authority. And that's one reason that we've tried to advocate
not simply replacing these units on a one-by-one basis, and re-
duplicating a bad situation.
The Tuxedo Court project in Birmingham is going to replace 488
obsolete units of aging buildings with 331 modern, for-purchase rental
homes. All the residents who are not going to relocate there have been
given vouchers, or if they qualify, public assistance, and many of them
have chosen to move to communities across town.
Our vision, and I think the vision of both Democrats and Republicans
on this committee, should be for the residents of those communities to
better themselves and better their living conditions, their housing. It
should be vibrant, mixed-use communities with good housing, safe
streets, strong schools.
In a previous debate, I mentioned a public housing project in
downtown Atlanta called East Lake. East Lake was so dangerous that the
police refused to patrol it. And it's not alone. Children slept in
bathtubs or closets for fear of being hit by random gunfire.
A developer by the name of Tom Cousins proposed replacing this crime-
ridden project, where there was very little hope for the residents,
very little future for the youth, with a mixed-income community. And
that's been done. Today, professionals, accountants, doctors, lawyers,
people with good income, are living side by side with families still on
subsidized and on public assistance. The end result is a sharp
reduction in crime in East Lake. But the more important result is a
sharp increase in the level of academic achievement and success among
the youth living in that community.
Now, for all the good, we are concerned about this bill. First of
all, it eliminates the Main Street Revitalization program, which was
for the benefit of smaller communities.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BACHUS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. As the gentleman may know, an amendment
is going to be offered to restore that, and I agree with the gentleman
that that amendment should be accepted.
Mr. BACHUS. I thank the chairman for that.
Another problem that we have with it is eliminating the demolition-
only grants, because on certain occasions we feel like public housing,
there may be adequate housing other places, or vouchers or a better
system. But I think one of the main causes of concerns we have, and the
gentlelady from West Virginia, is the green requirements. While some of
the provisions have merit, we believe that they have, number one, the
unintended result of reducing the number of affordable housing units
that can actually be constructed under HOPE VI.
In fact, I have a letter I would like to introduce from the
homebuilders, but also a coalition of National Affordable Housing
Management Association. And basically what they say here is that the
additional cost burdens of these particular green compliances will
greatly discourage the development of these projects and drive up the
cost substantially.
January 14, 2008.
Hon. Barney Frank,
Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Maxine Waters,
Chair, 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. Shelley Moore Capito,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Housing and Community
Opportunity, Committee on Financial Services, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Committee Leaders: The undersigned organizations, who
work collectively in support of affordable housing and
promoting sustainability in our nation's housing stock, are
writing to express our opposition to H.R. 3524, The HOPE VI
Improvement and Reauthorization Act, in its current form. We
do appreciate that the forthcoming Manager's amendment will
make several important improvements to the bill. For example,
we support allowing HUD to grant a waiver to the one-for-one
replacement provision under certain circumstances. However,
we suggest that HUD also should be able to provide waivers
related to funding realities. If one-for-one replacement
renders a deal infeasible, there should be enough flexibility
to waive that provision. We also believe that extending the
period in which all replacement units must be provided after
demolition has been completed from 12 to 36 months is very
sensible. HOPE VI projects must contend with many variables,
from weather conditions, securing local approvals and working
extensively with tenant groups. All of these factors can
increase construction periods beyond what otherwise might be
considered normal.
However, while our organizations have long-supported this
important housing program, there are several provisions in
the bill which we believe are so onerous that private
developers may no longer be able to participate, jeopardizing
the very existence of the program. Specifically, our main
objection is that the legislation will unfairly and
unnecessarily drive up development costs by mandating
compliance with privately developed green building rating
systems. The additional cost burdens for green compliance
adds further impediments to an already complicated financing
structure for HOPE VI projects and could greatly discourage
developers from undertaking future projects. In addition,
there are provisions related to the occupancy of HOPE VI
projects that are unclear and could be interpreted to prevent
owners from instituting sensible eligibility standards.
Green Building Mandate
Our members are committed to working on increasing the
sustainability of affordable housing, as well as keeping
housing affordable in all markets. We believe that mandatory
green requirements in the HOPE VI program will have
unintended consequences that far outweigh any sustainability
gains. Dramatic reductions in additional HOPE VI projects is
a very real possibility because of increased costs that
developers would have to finance based on the proposed
provisions in the bill. There is a limited amount of HOPE
VI funding, and a developer's ability to leverage a
significant amount of additional financing is limited. In
addition, total development costs (TDC) are capped. Unless
TDCs are allowed to increase (or alternatively, the costs
of complying with the green building requirements are
excluded from TDC), the developers may be forced to scrimp
on other important aspects of these developments to pay
for costly green components. Decisions on what aspects of
green development can be afforded in these properties
should be left to the developers and their partner public
housing agencies. HUD has recognized this as a practicable
approach, as demonstrated by its implementation of green
building incentives in the Mark-to-Market program.
Further, the specific reference to only one green rating
system will stifle innovation and technology advancement in
all aspects of green building. During a time when green
building is growing exponentially and programs are competing
to be the ``greenest,'' Congress should not be codifying one
inflexible benchmark that cannot adapt to future
sustainability needs. Congress should not be
[[Page H306]]
using the HOPE VI program to pick winners and losers in the
green building arena.
Keeping green building as flexible and competitive as
possible reaps the greatest environmental and economic
rewards. Mandating a specific green building requirement for
HOPE VI is short-sighted, overly restrictive and costly and
is a disservice to community affordable housing needs.
Sustainable green design for all housing markets should be
protected from government mandates and rigid statutory
benchmarks. Green building means something different in every
climate zone, just as every market has differing demands for
affordable housing.
It is important to understand that opposing a green
building mandate in no way signals opposition to
sustainability or environmental conservation. Green building
should not be driven to the lowest common denominator or
serve as a deterrent for development of these vital housing
projects. Opposing the green building requirements in this
bill demonstrates awareness that green building is an
important variable that needs to be incorporated into HOPE VI
in a manner that is functional, flexible, and encourages more
energy and resource-efficient construction in the future.
eligibility provisions
The Limitation on Exclusion provision (Section 7(m)(2))
could be interpreted to place limits on the public housing
agencies' (PHAs) ability to establish reasonable eligibility
criteria for occupancy in the new HOPE VI development. The
provision says that replacement housing under a HOPE VI plan
must be subject to the same policies, practices, standards,
and criteria regarding waiting lists, tenant screening
(including screening criteria such as credit checks), and
occupancy that apply to other housing owned, managed or
assisted by the PHA.
However, the provision goes on to say that a household
cannot be excluded from the HOPE VI development, except to
the extent specifically provided by other provisions of
Federal law (e.g., relating to safety and security in public
and assisted housing; ineligibility of drug criminals,
illegal drug users, alcohol abusers and dangerous sex
offenders; as well as preferences for the elderly and
disabled; and persons convicted of methamphetamine offenses).
This seems to preclude PHAs from screening for credit
worthiness or other typical screening criteria.
We support holding all households to the same standards. We
note that HUD's Housing Choice Voucher Handbook encourages
PHAs and owners to adopt screening policies that take into
consideration tenancy history related to payment of rent and
utility bills; caring for a unit and premises; respecting the
rights of others to the peaceful enjoyment of their housing;
drug-related criminal activity or other criminal activity
that is a threat to life, safety or property of others and
compliance with other essential conditions of tenancy. The
proposed provision in H.R. 3524 could be interpreted to
undermine HUD's existing policies and create an unfair
disadvantage to other eligible tenants who wish to move into
a HOPE VI property. Further, it appears that the bill may
provide a de facto preference to applicants that have been
released from a prison or other correctional facility. It is
the responsibility of the owner/landlord to ensure a safe
environment for all residents, and such a preference may
preclude their ability to honor that responsibility.
The owners of HOPE VI developments must be able to
implement good business practices to attract investors and
lenders. Otherwise, the developments will be viewed as too
risky, and the developer's financing prospects will be in
jeopardy. We suggest that these provisions be clarified to
ensure that PHAs can continue to set fair and reasonable
screening and eligibility standards that are applied to all
households.
other
We believe that the provision eliminating HUD's ability to
award demolition grants should be revisited. There may be
circumstances under which a demolition only is warranted. HUD
and PHAs should be allowed to retain this current authority.
summary
Our organizations are committed to furthering the
sustainability of affordable housing and believe that the
success of these efforts lies in the ability of the industry
to take advantage of the innovations that are constantly
occurring in the market. The provisions in H.R. 3524, The
HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act, as currently
written, will impede these efforts by mandating the use of
one specific system. In addition, owners of HOPE VI
properties must be able to establish reasonable and workable
occupancy policies that are fair to all prospective tenants
in HOPE VI communities.
Our organizations stand ready to work with the Committee to
craft an effective and appropriate way to address green
building and eligibility standards within the HOPE VI
program. Thank you for your consideration of our views.
Institute of Real Estate Management.
National Affordable Housing Management Association.
National Apartment Association.
National Association of Home Builders.
National Multi Housing Council.
More important, and let me close by saying this, and this is a
serious problem with this bill, I have a letter from the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. They say that the
standards we're using in this bill, let me quote them:
``If a builder wants to use wood and receive LEED certification,''
that's the program we're using, ``they are largely forced to use wood
products grown and manufactured overseas.''
{time} 1115
``This puts American workers and American products at a competitive
disadvantage.''
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Washington, DC, January 11, 2008.
Hon. Barney Frank,
Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Maxine Waters,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development,
Committee on Financial Services, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Spencer Bachus,
Ranking Member, Committee on Financial Services, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Shelley Moore Capito,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Housing and Community
Development Committee on Financial Services, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairmen Frank and Waters, and Ranking Members Bachus
and Capito: On behalf of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, I am writing to express our concerns
with provisions of H.R. 3524 that would require non-
residential construction in HOPE VI grant projects to meet
the United States Green Building Council's Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating criteria.
For the last four years, the Carpenters have had a great
interest in green building legislation as it affects both
parts of our union--the part that constructs buildings and
the part that harvests and manufactures wood products that
are used in them. Therefore, we are strong supporters of
green building, but want to ensure that building ``green''
does not result in ``pink'' slips for our members.
Over this time, we have found a number of important flaws
in the LEED system that we believe makes it unsatisfactory
for the marketplace and should not be the only standard
referenced in legislation.
Our primary concern is LEED's failure to recognize all
credible, sustainable forestry certification programs in its
certified wood credit. LEED only provides credit to builders
using forest products certified by the Forest Stewardship
Council (FSC). No credits are awarded for wood products
produced by other companies independently third party
certified to the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI)
Program standard or the American Tree Farm System, the two
largest sustainable forest management systems in the United
States. These two systems account for over 90 million acres
of forestland, yet do not qualify for points under LEED.
Therefore, if a builder wants to use wood and receive LEED
certification, they are largely forced to use wood products
grown or manufactured overseas. This puts American workers
and American products at a competitive disadvantage.
LEED also discriminates against wood compared to other
imported building products. LEED credits builders for using
``rapidly renewable materials,'' which are defined as
products originating from plants harvested in a 10-year
cycle. As you might expect, construction lumber cannot earn
this credit since it takes more than ten years for a tree to
grow to a usable size and diameter. Instead, if a builder
uses exotic crops such as imported bamboo, they can earn the
credit.
As a result of these flaws, we have actively supported
other green building systems that are inclusive in regard to
the use of wood. One system that we have supported at the
national, state and local levels is the Green Building
Initiative's Green Globes program. Unlike LEED, it recognizes
all the major sustainable forestry programs used in the
United States and does not put wood at a disadvantage
compared to other building products. Also unlike LEED, Green
Globes takes into account the concept of life-cycle analysis,
or the cost to operate the building over time.
As a result, Green Globes has been increasingly recognized
by federal agencies and state governments. At the federal
level, it has been recognized by the Department of Health and
Human Services, the Department of the Interior and the
Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, 11 states have
written Green Globes into their state green building
statutes,
Therefore, we request that the legislation be modified in
order to specifically include other standards, such as Green
Globes. Should any amendments be offered to create a process
that gives the government the opportunity to review and
select a standard, we request that language be included that
gives all eligible and viable green building standards equal
consideration and ability to participate in the process. We
believe that with these changes, we will produce a piece of
legislation that meets all of the legislation's goals.
Sincerely,
Douglas J. McCarron,
General President.
[[Page H307]]
Number 1, under the standards you've adopted, we won't be using wood,
when it's one of our greatest renewable resources. We won't be using
wood. So you will be putting a lot of carpenters and laborers and
joiners out of work, the framers.
But second, if you do use wood, you will have to import that wood.
So, as an article in Slate magazine said, and it's the reason the
University of Michigan in one of their projects is trying to decide
whether they want to use this LEED program, LEED, this article in Slate
magazine actually pointed out that you can put up a bicycle rack and
you get the same credit as if you used an energy efficient heating
system. That's wrong.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, to correct that information, I yield 30
seconds to the chairman, Mr. Frank.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman from Alabama correctly
quoted the carpenters' letter. The manager's amendment responds to
that. The manager's amendment, which we are now debating, removes
reference to the leadership and energy and environmental design. So the
objection raised by the carpenters we thought had some validity to it,
and the manager's amendment takes care of it.
So there is no reference to that. So two of the points the gentleman
made we agree with, and we're correcting, restoring main street and
removing any reference to LEED. There will be other differences, but I
did want to acknowledge this is an example of how we're trying to work
together.
Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BACHUS. Would you continue to work with us to make sure that, in
fact, is possible?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Maloney) 2 minutes.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
her leadership and chairing this important subcommittee and her hard
work on this bill, along with Chairman Frank, and I rise in very strong
support of the revitalization, reauthorization of an important program,
HOPE VI.
This legislation will increase the annual authorization from $100
million to $800 million, and it is really a funding housing crisis,
affordable housing crisis in our Nation. This funding and this program
is desperately needed.
In New York City alone, over tens of thousands of people are on the
waiting list for public housing. This bill requires that all public
housing units proposed for demolition be replaced on a one-for-one
basis and that any units demolished will be replaced within 36 months.
This is tremendously important because people in public housing have no
other place to go.
It adds additional tenant protections by requiring public housing
agencies to monitor and track all households affected by the HOPE VI
revitalization program, as well as develop a relocation plan that
provides comparable housing for all relocated residents.
In an effort to be better stewards of our environment, this bill
requires all replacement housing and other structures part of the HOPE
VI development to be built in accordance with flexible green building
standards, and it's appropriate for the government to have high
environmental standards. It will be more energy efficient in the future
and, in the long run, will save taxpayers dollars.
This bill continues a really important program that revitalizes
severely distressed public housing and transforms them into safe,
livable communities. And since its creation, it has provided over 560
grants, and Congress has appropriated over $6.6 billion in funding.
It has helped public housing authorities create relationships with
the private sector and open up opportunities to bring partnerships that
bring in much-needed resources into struggling communities.
For example, by 2004, 92 public housing authorities have used $313
million capital funds to leverage over $1 billion in private
investment. These funds have been used to modernize and redevelop
public housing.
With the crisis in safe, affordable housing we are seeing in our
country, it is my hope that with our reauthorization of this important
legislation we can continue the successes of this program.
I really urge my colleagues to support this program that is vitally
needed.
Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Shays), who I mentioned in my opening statement had been very
integral in reaching what I think is a very good bill, 3 minutes.
Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I
thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for bringing out
this legislation and for their willingness to work on a bipartisan
basis to get a good bill. And thank you for that.
I am a strong believer in the HOPE VI program because I've seen its
unbelievable benefit to my district. We had Southfield Village public
housing. We converted it into Southwood Square, with a $26 million
Federal grant, leveraging $79 million to reach $105 million. It has 330
units, 160 of low-income and 85 of market rental, but the unique thing
is the 160 and the 85 are all the same units. They are really nice
units, market rate units.
So, you may have someone paying market rate, and when they leave, the
new person may be low-income. There's a guaranteed of the 330 units,
160 are low-income. It has actually a pool. It has a workout area, and
it has some wealthy people staying there. They work at successful
businesses in the greater Stamford community.
So young kids who have very little income when they see someone
getting into a BMW, it's not for a drug deal; it's to go to work where
they are paid well. When young children go to work out, what they hear
discussed is how someone can make money legitimately.
It is not a place warehousing the poor, but having all our fellow
Americans live together, black, white, Hispanic, minorities from all
areas of the world, with people who have income, minorities as well who
have income and those who don't. It is an incredible thing to see our
country come together under a HOPE VI program.
And besides the 85 units of market rental, you have 15 of affordable
home ownership. These are townhouses, four-story buildings. And then we
have Fairfield Court, $19 million of Federal funds leveraging $80
million, 272 units, 141 of low-income and 131 of affordable rental,
market rental and affordable home ownership.
What I see in the HOPE VI grant is a transformation not just of the
physical outlay of a community and the upgrading of neighborhoods, but
I'm seeing Americans come together, living like we think we should
live, together, not separate.
I rise today in strong support of the reauthorization of the HOPE VI
program. HOPE VI has transformed rundown housing projects into vibrant
communities and changed the face of affordable housing throughout the
country.
I am grateful to have worked on this reauthorization and am grateful
for all of the hard work and collaboration of this Committee.
Specifically, I would like to thank Chairwoman Waters and Ranking
Member Capito and their staff for their leadership on this important
program.
The mixed income communities created through HOPE VI grants epitomize
the power of public-private partnerships. This reauthorization
represents a renewed commitment by the Federal Government to revitalize
our Nation's most distressed public housing.
Since the creation of HOPE VI, public-private partnerships have
leveraged significant commitments from private sector resources. For
every dollar the Government commits to this revitalization effort, HOPE
VI projects yield three to four in private funding.
In light of a serious shortage of affordable housing in Connecticut's
Fourth District and throughout the Nation, it is imperative we
encourage the utilization of all available resources to provide
quality, safe, and affordable housing for our Nation's neediest
citizens.
I have experienced first hand the transformation that HOPE VI grants
are capable of making. We have two incredible HOPE VI sites in
Stamford, and I wish Members and the administration could see that
transformation. If they did, I doubt they would ever dream of
eliminating this program.
Southfield Village received a $26 million HOPE VI grant, which
leveraged $79 million in funds to create Southwood Square. The
development features 330 units, 160 of which are low-income public
housing units, 85 are market rate units, and 15 are affordable
homeownership units.
In 2004, Fairfield Court received a HOPE VI grant of $19 million that
will leverage $80 million. This project will house 141 low-income
[[Page H308]]
units and 131 affordable rental, market rate rental, and affordable
homeownership units.
At these mixed-income communities, low-income families and those
paying market rent live side-by-side, and have the opportunity to learn
and grow from one another. They are safe places to live where children
can grow and play together and where residents are involved in the
planning and growth of their community.
When the Federal Government demonstrates its interest in improving
the housing needs of low income families, the community responds. I
call my colleagues today to reaffirm our commitment to this program,
which has significantly expanded upon affordable housing options for
families throughout the country.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), a hardworking member of our
committee.
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chairman, let me start by thanking Chairman Frank
and Chairwoman Waters for bringing this critical and much-needed
legislation to the floor.
The HOPE VI program was developed as a result of recommendations by
the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing, which
was charged with proposing a national action plan to eradicate severely
distressed public housing. The commission recommended revitalization in
three general areas: physical improvements, management improvements,
and social and community services to address resident needs. As a
result, the HOPE VI program was developed in 1993.
Grants are used by public housing authorities to fund capital costs
of major rehabilitation, new construction and physical improvements,
demolition of severely distressed public housing, acquisition of sites
for off-site construction, and community and supportive service
programs for residents. Any public housing authority that has severely
distressed public housing units in its inventory is eligible to apply.
In each of the past 5 years, the Bush administration has proposed
elimination of the HOPE VI program, requesting no money for this
successful program, threatening to strand tens of thousands of low-
income families and children to live in substandard public housing.
But the Congress, under both Republican and Democratic majorities,
has continued to fund the program. In 2006, $100 million was
appropriated, and last month, $100 million was included in the Omnibus
Appropriations Act. This reauthorization of HOPE VI is long overdue.
In the Fifth Congressional District and in the City of Minneapolis
alone, my local public housing authority has estimated that they need
over $205 million just to maintain 5,883 public housing units at only a
fair condition. Again, let me repeat this. My district needs $205
million to keep these public housing units from not falling below basic
standards. The backlog of units in desperate need of refurbishment and
rehabilitation is a result of 7 long years of neglect of public
infrastructure.
This is why I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this bill. By
passing H.R. 3524, we move a step closer to recognizing the rights for
all citizens.
Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a member of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Madam Chairman, President Reagan once said that the nearest thing to
eternal life on Earth is a Federal program, and I don't think there is
any better case study than perhaps the HOPE VI program. If there was
ever a program that cried out for termination, it's this one;
termination so that the money used for this program can be returned to
hardworking American families.
Many of us are acquainted with the history of the program, begun in
1992 with a very noble purpose of taking 86,000 units of severely
distressed public housing and replacing them, demolishing them.
Well, guess what, Madam Chairman; it achieved its mission. But
somewhere along the line we had this thing in Washington known as
mission creep. What we should have done is probably given all the
employees of the program a bonus, throw them a big party and say thank
you for doing something good and achieving the mission of your
particular program. But instead, somehow the program goes on and on and
on.
Now, the Office of Management and Budget has said that this program
is ineffective. If you look at their part rating of the Office of
Management and Budget and start to study it, they ask very specific
questions about the program, one of which is: Does the program address
a specific and existing problem, interest or need? And the answer is
no. The program has accomplished its primary goal to demolish 100,000
severely distressed public housing units by 2003.
Another question in the part rating of the Office of Management and
Budget: Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or
duplicative of any Federal, State, local or private effort? The answer
again, no. HOPE VI is one of a select number of tools available to
housing authorities to revitalize distressed or obsolete public
housing.
So again, number one, we had a program that accomplished its original
mission. We now have a program that is duplicative of other housing
programs. And I know there are many who come to the floor who are very
sincere and passionate in their belief that the only way to help low-
income people is through government housing programs. I have a
different philosophy. I have a different set of principles.
We already have 80-plus Federal housing programs, and the budget for
Federal housing programs has almost doubled in the last 10 years, from
$15.4 billion to more than $30 billion now.
And this percentage increase, almost double, is a rate, Madam
Chairman, a rate of increase that is higher than veterans spending,
education spending, energy spending, transportation spending,
international affairs spending, and even Social Security over that same
time period.
So, relative to our budget priorities, it's very hard to argue that
somehow Federal housing programs have been shortchanged. I fear that
HOPE VI simply compounds failure. We take failed housing projects, we
start to demolish them, and then we fail to get rid of the program.
Again, I understand that some people and many on the other side of
the aisle do not agree with my vision. They believe the only way to
help is through other government programs, and if so, I would ask this,
and I'm sorry that this didn't happen in committee.
I offered an amendment to transfer this money to the section 8
program. I think there are a number of challenges with section 8, but I
certainly see it as a superior form of government assistance than these
other programs.
{time} 1130
And Member after Member on the other side of the aisle has complained
that we have insufficient resources for section 8. Well, here's an
opportunity. Now, unfortunately, that amendment was not ruled in order.
I hope that one day maybe I can work with the majority in finding ways
to take less effective government housing programs and perhaps transfer
funds to more effective housing programs.
I also find it quite curious that many Members on the other side of
the aisle complained about this program in hearings and in markups. So
they complained about it and then sit here and reauthorize it.
And there are two other reasons that we should not support this. One
is, it puts us on a trajectory to help double-spending to the next
generation. Now, sometimes we have to make some tough choices. We are
going to double taxes on the next generation if we don't do something
about spending today.
And we should never forget that the best housing program is a job.
And the greatest threat to jobs today is the threatened tax increases
of the majority. That's where we ought to get our affordable housing.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, this would be an excellent time for me to
call on the major cosponsor of this bill, someone who has been
consistently involved with HOPE VI ever since it was originated.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Mel Watt.
Mr. WATT. I thank the Chair of the subcommittee for moving me up in
the order so that I can address some of the misconceptions that we've
just heard.
[[Page H309]]
I'm holding in my hand a report that was authored, in fact one-third
of the report that was authored, by HUD in 1996, about 4 or 5 years
into the HOPE VI program. And if we thought that this program was only
about demolishing distressed public housing, as my colleague who just
spoke would have us believe, we should read the report. It did identify
86,000 severely distressed public housing units that needed to be
demolished and replaced in a different kind of setting. It went on to
say that we needed to address the needs of the residents. And the
commission proposed providing increased funding for supportive
services, creating a national system to coordinate social and
supportive services to enable residents to become self-sufficient, and
devising a system that requires public housing agencies to solicit
resident input into the solutions.
And the things we have been complaining about, the gentleman is
correct, we have been complaining about the HOPE VI program because it
has only been about demolishing public housing and not doing any of the
services that were originally contemplated by the program. And the
amendments in this reauthorization bill are designed to attack those
very shortcomings and the original objectives that HOPE VI was designed
to accomplish. Number one, not only demolition, but one-for-one
replacement is in this bill; input by residents is in this bill;
supportive services, increased funding is in this bill.
So the gentleman is absolutely correct: those of us who have been
complaining about the program acknowledge that it has not accomplished
the objectives that were set for the programs by Republicans, not
Democrats, to replace and eliminate severely distressed housing and to
provide the kind of support that is necessary for residents of public
housing to be successful. That's exactly what this bill does, and I
encourage support for the bill.
Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I would
like to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member
of the subcommittee who has never missed a meeting, Congressman Al
Green.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I thank you, the
ranking member, and all of the other Members on the other side, Members
on both sides. This is a bipartisan effort.
Madam Chairman, please let me dispel any notion that there is a
surplus of affordable available housing in this country. In fact, in
the State of Texas alone, we have a need for 437,000 units, and we are
third in the Nation. New York is number two, with 528,000 units needed;
California, 830,000 units. There is no surplus of available affordable
housing. But we're talking about the public housing units, and there is
no surplus of available public housing units.
Let me share a brief vignette with you. I had the privilege and
honor, the pre-eminent privilege, if you will, of traveling to New
Orleans with our subcommittee Chair, the Honorable Maxine Waters. While
we were there, we visited the public housing units, and we actually
talked to tenants. There were tenants who were pleading with us to give
them the opportunity to return to what they called their homes. These
were not just pieces of trash to them. These were places where they
have memories, where they had hopes, where they had aspirations. And
they were being denied access to property that they believed that they
could live in. Now, was it to the standard that you and I my might want
to live in? No. To the standards of those who live in the sweets of
life, they were not; but to the standards of those who live in the
streets of life, they were above standard. If you've got a choice of
living on the streets or living in units that are not suitable for
those who have much, you will choose to live in the units that are
available to you.
I regret that some of us seem to think that the best way to help
people who are living in conditions that we find unacceptable is to
cause them to have no place to live at all. Now, there is something
wrong with that kind of thinking. And at some point, we've got to
consider what the people need, and not see these as projects. I beg
that we support this legislation. Keep people off the streets of life.
Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to recognize the ranking member, the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), for 3 minutes.
Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chairman, Members of this body, let me say that
there is a difference of opinion on our side and different opinions on
our side. But I do believe that one thing ought to be clarified, and I
believe I share this opinion with all my colleagues on this side. We
believe the purpose of HOPE VI is not simply to replace a failed
housing project model with another public housing project or community.
We believe the purpose that all of us have, Republicans and Democrats,
is to help those families in those communities have a better life and a
better future, and hope.
As I think the Urban Institute and others have found, the majority of
those residents, and I don't dispute what the gentleman from Texas
said, there are and there will be residents that will say I want to go
back to that community. But, hopefully, and one thing HOPE VI does,
that community is replaced by a much better community, a much better
mixed-income community where there is more hope, there is less crime,
there is less poverty, and there are residents in those communities
that can actually help those children get jobs. But most, and every
study that has looked at this, and maybe someone on your side will
correct me, most, if not every, study has shown that the average
resident of that community is going to choose not to come back to that
same location, but to relocate to another area because in most cases
the area they would relocate to is closer to their job, it's closer to
a school, or if not a school, it's closer to a higher performing
school, and they choose, through a voucher, to relocate. In fact, a
substantial minority of those residents relocate to another community,
get a better job, get a better income, and move totally off public
assistance.
There are a lot of fond memories in those communities, but there are
a lot of people trapped in a circle of poverty in those communities and
surrounded by criminal elements. And when we do this one-for-one model,
I believe we are taking resources where we could give people the choice
of relocating elsewhere and reestablishing what we had that we tore
down.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from
Wisconsin, who has been so much involved in this issue, Gwen Moore.
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Thank you, Madam Chairman. HOPE VI is not
just a tremendously successful housing program; it's a program that
revitalizes entire communities.
When you have an area with thousands of people in dense public
housing communities, it's essential that we disperse poverty and create
communities within mixed-income groups. HOPE VI has had enormous
success at doing just that.
I would like to remind my colleagues that HOPE VI is not some liberal
Democrat program; it was created under a Republican administration, the
previous President Bush. However, for the past 5 years, this President
Bush has proposed ending this vital program, claiming that it has
already accomplished its goal. Clearly, he's mistaken.
Secondly, I just want to remind the body that we're experiencing a
mortgage crisis of gargantuan, indeed, global proportions. The bad
actors in the mortgage market have found fertile ground among families
who have yearned for decent housing. They have preyed upon these
families with these awful mortgage products because of the dearth of
affordable rental units. HOPE VI is an answer to prayer for these
families who may not be able to achieve homeownership, but deserve
decent and affordable housing.
Mrs. CAPITO. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from West Virginia has 2 minutes
remaining.
Ms. WATERS. I would like to inquire as to how much time I have left,
Madam Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California has 4 minutes
remaining.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New Jersey, Congressman Bill Pascrell.
Mr. PASCRELL. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3524.
[[Page H310]]
I can provide testimony here. I was a mayor. In fact, in the final
years before I came to the Congress of the United States, we built HOPE
VI housing. It was successful. And the community decided what that
housing would be like and the community decided what the standards
would be of living. In the same area, in the same area that I've just
heard we should move people out of, you want to lift up. That's what
hope is all about. That's what HOPE VI is all about.
So I can testify to the success. Come to Paterson, New Jersey, and
see how HOPE VI operates. And we want to provide other areas of
buildings that are falling down. Why should tenants have to live in
those other buildings in that same situation? We want to give hope to
those people as well, to provide better housing.
HOPE VI grants are used by public housing authorities to fund major
rehab and demolition. I urge everyone to vote for this legislation.
Ms. WATERS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Danny Davis.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I represent one of the largest
concentrations of public housing in the United States of America in the
third largest city. And I can assure you that the mayor of the City of
Chicago strongly supports HOPE VI. The Governor of Illinois strongly
supports HOPE VI. Every member of our delegation from the City of
Chicago strongly supports HOPE VI. It gives hope to those individuals
who are homeless, who have given up, who are left out.
I strongly urge passage of this legislation. And let's keep the hope
in it.
{time} 1145
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a gentleman who has
been very much involved in this issue, Congressman Elijah Cummings.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for
her leadership and to you, Chairman Frank, and all of the members of
the committee.
Madam Chairman, this is a very important piece of legislation
involving what we have, HOPE VI projects. And I just want to correct
Mr. Bachus. Two of those projects are within six blocks of my house, so
I deal with these folks every day. I talk to them. I wish we had more
HOPE VI projects because I will never forget when we opened one of
them. The area had been drug infested, a highrise, and when we opened
it up, literally a lot of residents came back and they were crying
because they were going to move in. There were others who couldn't move
in because we did not have enough housing. I will never forget that
day. I said this is like having Andy of Mayberry in the middle of our
community. And it is. Children are able to play. Men staying out late
at night playing checkers. People can leave their bikes out. A
wonderful life and giving hope. That's what it's all about.
So I want to thank Ms. Waters and Chairman Frank for including in
this legislation, as part of their manager's amendment, certain items
that we included. And I want to thank you very much for your
leadership.
Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and
I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I would like to inquire how much time I
have left.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has 1 minute remaining.
Ms. WATERS. I will yield that 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy and her
leadership on this.
Madam Chairman, I come from a community that took almost 500 units of
World War II-era public housing and replaced it with almost 1,000
units, including 230 that were unrestricted market rate. It was an
anchor for revitalizing the community. It leveraged three-to-one
investment from the private sector, and it was built according to
environmentally sustainable standards.
I cannot say how strongly I support this legislation to be a
blueprint for how HOPE VI can make a difference for public housing and
community revitalization around America. I strongly urge support for
this legislation and rejection of efforts to water it down. Use this
model. Make it work. You will be proud.
Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank all the speakers
for discussing what I think is a good program, HOPE VI. On this side of
the aisle, even though the chairmen of the full committee and
subcommittee have made great strides in terms of the manager's
amendment in terms of answering some of our concerns, but we still have
some concerns. And you are going to hear this through the amendment
process, whether it's one-on-one replacement, demolition only, and my
amendment on the green communities.
So I appreciate HOPE VI's successes. I think we have heard from a lot
of Members who have had individual successes in their own districts. I
reiterate the success in my district was from a demolition-only grant,
and I've seen how the community can benefit and the housing conditions
can improve and the quality of life improve at the same time.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the passage
of H.R. 3524, the ``HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act of
2007.'' This bipartisan bill allows public housing agencies to continue
to improve the lives of families in public housing through the
revitalization of severely distressed public housing. Throughout
America, there are tens of thousands of working families who are in
desperate need of affordable housing, but are unable to obtain it, due
to a shortage of sufficient public housing units. Passage of H.R. 3524
will dramatically improve the lives of those from low and moderate
incomes who are having difficulty finding decent and affordable
housing.
In Detroit, there are scores of families who are on the public
housing waiting list, and are in dire need of affordable housing. Many
of these families are forced to stay in homeless shelters, sleep in
expensive hotels, or stay with friends and relatives until they can
find permanent housing. This bill will provide direct assistance to
low-income individuals and families in Detroit who will now have access
to more affordable housing units, given that cities and towns across
America will have increased federal funding to construct affordable
housing units.
H.R. 3524 also ensures that the HOPE VI program does not contribute
to the loss of public housing. It requires public housing agencies
replace any demolished public housing unit with another comparable
unit. Furthermore, the legislation gives agencies flexibility in the
location of replacement housing by allowing replacement units to be
provided in on- site mixed-income housing developments; and in other
areas where the public housing agency has jurisdiction.
One of the most important benefits of H.R. 3524 is that more
Americans will receive expanded housing opportunities through ensuring
that families are able to move back into replacement housing units by
prohibiting unreasonably stringent rescreening policies and making
residents who are otherwise eligible for public housing also eligible
for a HOPE VI unit.
The bill also encourages resident involvement in the redevelopment
planning phases for new affordable housing. This is a critically
important provision because it will help ensure that communities
impacted by housing redevelopment will have a say in where they are
going to live. Also, H.R. 3524 requires the monitoring and tracking of
displaced residents by requiring housing authorities to maintain
current contact information for each affected household while the
mixed-income community is being developed. It is also a progressive
bill, in that it implements green building standards in order to
provide long-term energy efficiency and savings.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Chairman, I am obliged to speak up on the HOPE VI
bill before us today, particularly because of the District's track
record has made this city a shining success story, the fourth largest
recipient of HOPE VI funding in the Nation, and an innovative leader in
HOPE VI projects spurred on by federal funds available until recently,
and the District's success in obtaining HOPE VI grants. I have devoted
considerable time and effort to help the city obtain these grants. The
great success the city has had in the stiff, nationwide competition it
has faced in seeking each grant it has won, greatly energized by its
own efforts. Even now, the District of Columbia has a grant pending.
HOPE VI has been the functional equivalent of a federal government
stamp of approval. The District provides a fabulous example of how a
little government money can act as a magnet for private and nonprofit
funds that otherwise would not be available. Having received over $140
million in HOPE VI grants, the District has been able to maximize every
grant dollar, leveraging the grant awards at a ratio of 1 to 7 to
attract unusually large
[[Page H311]]
amounts of public and private funds, $740 million of non-government
funding to five HOPE VI sites in the District.
A brief sampling of HOPE VI successes in the city illustrates the
incredible economic impact that the grants have had. The H Street
Barracks in Ward 6 is the hottest retail strip under HOPE VI. The
District's first HOPE VI development, the Town Homes in Ward 6, not far
from where we stand today, has been occupied by District residents for
over eight years. In its prior life, the Town Homes was known as the
Ellen Wilson Dwellings and stood abandoned for eight years, depressing
the vibrancy of the surrounding community. However, a $26 million HOPE
VI grant, awarded in 1993, transformed the public housing units into
134 cooperative, mixed-income town homes, with 33 families at 0 percent
to 24 percent of area median income, AMI, 34 families at 25 percent to
50 percent of AMI, and 67 families at 50 percent to 115 percent of AMI.
One of the most ambitious HOPE VI projects undertaken nationwide is
transforming the Arthur Capper/Carrollsburg Dwellings, a 23-acre 758-
unit public housing complex near the Washington Navy Yard and the
Southeast Federal Center, into a revitalized residential part of
general Anacostia waterfront revitalization, one of the largest urban
redevelopment areas in the country. The Arthur Capper/Carrollsburg
development is the first HOPE VI site in the country to provide one-
for-one replacement of demolished public housing units. The $34.9
million grant award has been leveraged to provide a total of over $424
million for the creation of 1,562 rental and home ownership units,
replacing the demolished units with 707 public housing units, 525
affordable rental units and 330 market rate homes for purchase, for a
total of 1,562 new units, and additional office space, neighborhood
retail space and a community center.
One of the best examples of how HOPE VI grants have helped DC
communities is the lowest-income ward in the District of Columbia, Ward
8, where HOPE VI developments are transforming an entire ward. Ward 8
leads the city in housing starts and new rental housing. A Giant Food
grocery store near the Henson Ridge HOPE VI development is the only
supermarket in the ward and the largest in the region. The Henson Ridge
HOPE VI across the street gave Giant an immediate customer base and now
draws the entire ward.
HOPE VI has been nothing short of a veritable economic engine to
drive the reinvigoration of entire communities. It would be a national
tragedy for Congress to allow HOPE VI to expire rather than building on
the success of the District and other cities. The investment by the
government pales in comparison to the return generated. I strongly
support H.R. 3524 to reauthorize the HOPE VI program for the next eight
years with up to $800 million dollars a year, and I urge my colleagues
to do the same.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 3524,
the HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2007. As the name of
this program suggests, the revitalization of distressed public housing
brings hope to millions of Americans--the hope of living in a community
that cherishes family values, the hope of enjoying a stable living
environment, and the hope of moving out of poverty and toward self-
sufficiency.
The HOPE VI program offers residents the ability to improve their
housing opportunities by transforming severely distressed public
housing into thriving mixed-income communities. The program has worked
well since its inception in 1992 and I am pleased that the bill makes a
number of significant improvements to HOPE VI to ensure that it is even
stronger into the future. These changes include requiring full
replacement for lost units and increased involvement of residents in
planning the redevelopment.
Furthermore, HOPE VI promotes the efforts of Congress in supporting a
cleaner environment by requiring compliance with green building
standards.
In Georgia's Second Congressional District, we have had resounding
success with the HOPE VI program. The Housing Authority of Columbus,
Georgia was awarded a $20 million HOPE VI grant in 2002. The
revitalization plan called for the demolition of 510 units of severely
distressed public housing units. At the time of grant award 380
families lived at Peabody.
The end result is a new mixed-income community (Ashley Station), set
on a beautifully designed site which incorporates new housing, new
parks, and new retail and street improvements. In addition, connections
were made that improved access to job training, employment
opportunities, education, health care, and other supportive services.
HOPE VI allowed for a unique public-private collaboration and more than
$5,800,000 in ``in-kind'' services were received by the HOPE VI
residents.
Invigorating the HOPE VI program will strengthen families, reduce
poverty, and rejuvenate the spirit of American communities throughout
the Nation. The program is more than just ``bricks and mortar.'' It
will make the American dream a reality for millions of low-income
people. I commend my colleagues for bringing this vital piece of
legislation to the House floor and I urge their strong support.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of
H.R. 3524, to reauthorize the ``HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization
Act of 2007,'' introduced by my distinguished colleague from
California, Representative Maxine Waters. This important legislation
will reauthorize and make changes to the HOPE VI public housing
revitalization program. I would like to thank Congresswoman Waters for
her consistent and dedicated work on this important issue, as well as
to commend Chairman Frank for his leadership in bringing this bill to
the floor today.
Madam Chairman, this legislation reauthorizes, with important
changes, the HOPE VI public housing revitalization program. Among other
provisions, it provides for the retention of public housing units,
protects residents from disruptions resulting from the grant, increases
resident involvement, and improves the efficiency and expediency of
construction. The HOPE VI program, created in 1992, has worked to
improve the Nation's most dilapidated public housing units by providing
much needed resources to public housing agencies. These funds have
directly benefited countless Americans, particularly the elderly and
those with disabilities, partnering with local agencies to improve
conditions in public housing units and communities.
In December, we were reminded of the existing problems in our
Nation's public housing systems when protesters in New Orleans
skirmished with police in New Orleans, as the City Council unanimously
voted to destroy 4,500 public housing units. I was appalled that, in
the holiday season, the citizens of New Orleans and survivors of
Hurricane Katrina were put in a position in which they had to fight to
keep a roof over their heads. The residents of New Orleans who saw
their homes and livelihoods destroyed by natural disaster two years ago
are far from alone in their need for improved public housing; citizens
across the country are feeling the acute need for the housing reform
delivered by this bill.
My home city of Houston faces unique challenges and opportunities.
One of the most important of which is dealing with the impact of taking
in nearly 200,000 Hurricane Katrina evacuees, an unprecedented act of
generosity for which Houston is famous. According to the 2000 U.S.
Census, nearly 2 million people live in Houston, the fourth largest
city in America. When the metropolitan area is taken into account, the
population swells to approximately 5.2 million. The Houston
metropolitan grew in population by more than 950,000 people between
1990 and 2000.
Madam Chairman, according to the American Community Survey (ACS)
conducted by the Census Bureau, there are 859,245 total housing units
in the City of Houston, of which 748,323 are occupied--347,865 are
occupied by owners (2.5 percent vacancy rate) and 400,458 by renters
(11.8 percent vacancy rate). Though the average cost of housing and
rent in Houston is low by national standards, Houston residents still
face a problem when it comes to affordable housing. According to a 2006
study by the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, 28.4 percent of
Houston homeowners and 51 percent of renters in the Houston
metropolitan area spend more than 30 percent of their monthly pre-tax
income on housing costs. This makes them ``housing-cost burdened'' as
defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Fully a quarter of Houston renters are ``severely housing-cost
burdened,'' meaning they pay more than 50 percent of their income in
housing costs. The National Low Income Housing Coalition, in its report
Out of Reach in 2006, estimates that in order to afford a 2-bedroom
apartment at the FMR, a renter would have to earn $14.77 an hour, more
than two and on-half times the minimum wage.
The affordability crisis is most pronounced among Houston's poorest
and disabled households. Among the 83,367 renter households in Houston
with incomes below 30 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI)--or
approximately $18,500 in the Houston metropolitan area--more than half,
56 percent, of them spend more than half of their gross income on
housing. Another 1 in 6 devotes more than 30 percent of their gross
income for housing.
Moreover, there is little federally subsidized housing available to
those in need. The Housing Authority's waiting list for Section 8
Housing Choice Vouchers now has been closed for three years and there
are still more than 10,000 people on the list. The average wait time is
between 18 months and two years. It is estimated that more than 12,000
people are homeless on any given night in Houston: 6,583 of them are
unsheltered and 3,600 of them are chronically homeless.
Madam Chairman, I support this legislation because it will begin to
address the serious
[[Page H312]]
housing problems we face in our own local communities, and as a nation.
Among its many important provisions, this legislation requires that all
public housing units proposed for demolition be replaced on a one-to-
one basis, guaranteeing the total availability of public housing. This
requirement will serve to protect low income residents under fair
housing laws. Further, a mixed-income housing development must be
provided on the site of the original public housing location and all
replacement housing units must be located in a mixed-income community.
The bill requires a third of the units in this development must be
public housing units, with limited exceptions. Public housing agencies
can build additional units on the site provided the provision of these
units does not violate fair housing laws and the number of additional
units is determined in consultation with residents, community leaders,
and local government officials. Remaining units must be built in
the jurisdiction of the public housing agency in low poverty areas and
in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing.
The bill provides displaced residents with three housing choices: (a)
a revitalized unit on the site of the original public housing location;
(b) a revitalized unit in the jurisdiction of the public housing
agency; or (c) a housing choice voucher, which can be used in areas
with lower concentrations of poverty. Public housing residents of the
revitalized developments must, under the provisions of this bill, be
subject to the same screening criteria used for all public housing
units.
This legislation also mandates adequate oversight, requiring public
housing agencies to monitor and track all households affected by the
HOPE VI revitalization plan. In addition, public housing agencies must
develop a temporary relocation plan that provides comparable housing
for all relocated residents, protects residents in transitioning to the
private rental market with housing choice vouchers, provides for
housing opportunities in 7 neighborhoods with lower concentrations of
poverty, and extends the voucher search time to 150 days.
Madam Chairman, this legislation also provides for the active
involvement and participation of residents in the grant planning
process, including public hearings and four notices to residents on (a)
the intent to apply for a HOPE VI grant, (b) grant award and relocation
options, (c) grant agreement and relocation options, and (d)
replacement housing.
The bill includes several provisions designed to increase the rate at
which HOPE VI developments are constructed, which will help reduce the
time tenants are relocated. The bill requires all new housing to be
rebuilt within 12 months from the allocation of low-income housing tax
credits or, for those grants that do not use tax credits, within 12
months of demolition or disposition. The bill waives the grant matching
requirement for HOPE VI applicants in areas recovering from natural
disasters or emergencies. This further helps these communities recover
quickly and efficiently. Grantees that do not meet performance
benchmarks will be penalized.
Finally, I would like to draw attention to requirements in this
legislation mandating that all replacement housing and other structures
part of the HOPE VI development to comply with certain energy-efficient
green building standards. This Congress has made protecting the
environment a priority, and I am pleased to see this provision included
in today's legislation.
I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this extremely
important legislation.
Mr. TERRY. Madam Chairman, I rise to express my opposition to H.R.
3524, the HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2007.
After speaking with the Omaha Housing Authority in my District, I
have been informed that the changes in the bill are overly prescriptive
and potentially burdensome for the community of Omaha.
In particular the one-for-one replacement of public housing units
that is required under this bill is simply not feasible. This
legislation requires one-for-one replacement of units that are
demolished under the proposed plan on the original site or within the
jurisdiction of the public housing authority. H.R. 3524 also mandates
that one-third of the units that are constructed as a part of the
mixed-income community revitalization plan remain public housing units.
One particular area where the Omaha Housing Authority would like to
apply a HOPE IV grant to is the Pleasant View area. I am told that
there are 190 units in Pleasant View that are in need of demolition,
however, with the overly burdensome regulation of the one-to-one
replacement requirement prescribed in this bill, the OHA would not be
able to feasibly perform this demolition. These units are currently not
occupied, so with the inclusion of Mr. Neugebauer's amendment we would
at least have some relief in this area.
I commend my colleague, Randy Neugebauer, for his amendment that
would apply the one-to-one replacement requirement for units demolished
under this program only to units that are occupied prior to demolition.
Another very problematic change for the Housing Authority in Omaha
included in this legislation would be the compliance with the Green
Communities rating system. As you know, this legislation requires the
proposed revitalization plan to comply with the mandatory and non-
mandatory items of the National Green Community checklist for
residential construction and the mandatory and non-mandatory components
of version 2.2 of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) green building system for New Construction and Major
Renovations.
The mandatory green building requirements for Green Communities and
the U.S. Green Building Council's (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) will drive up development costs and
threaten the viability of this important housing program in Omaha
reducing the actual number of units that can be built.
Because of the vital importance of protecting housing affordability
and keeping green building flexible, functional and effective, I will
be voting against this bill as is and urge a ``no'' vote to my
colleagues.
Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered
read.
The text of the committee amendment is as follows:
H.R. 3524
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``HOPE VI
Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2007''.
(b) References.--Except as otherwise expressly provided in
this Act, wherever in this Act an amendment or repeal is
expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a
section or other provision, the reference shall be considered
to be made to a section or other provision of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.).
(c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; references; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purposes of program.
Sec. 3. Authority to waive contribution requirement in cases of extreme
distress or emergency.
Sec. 4. Prohibition of demolition-only grants.
Sec. 5. Repeal of main street projects grant authority.
Sec. 6. Eligible activities.
Sec. 7. Selection of proposals for grants.
Sec. 8. Requirements for mandatory core components.
Sec. 9. Planning and technical assistance grants.
Sec. 10. Annual report; availability of documents.
Sec. 11. Definitions.
Sec. 12. Conforming amendment.
Sec. 13. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 14. Extension of program.
Sec. 15. Review.
Sec. 16. Regulations.
SEC. 2. PURPOSES OF PROGRAM.
Subsection (a) of section 24 of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437v(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before ``through'' the
following: ``located in communities of all sizes, including
small- and medium-sized communities,'';
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by inserting ``low- and'' before ``very low-income'';
and
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) promoting housing choice among low- and very low-
income families.''.
SEC. 3. AUTHORITY TO WAIVE CONTRIBUTION REQUIREMENT IN CASES
OF EXTREME DISTRESS OR EMERGENCY.
Subsection (c) of section 24 is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Waiver.--
``(A) Authority.--The Secretary may waive the applicability
of paragraph (1) with respect to an applicant or grantee if
the Secretary determines that circumstances of extreme
distress or emergency, in the area that the revitalization
plan of the applicant is to be carried out, directly affect
the ability of the applicant or grantee to comply with such
requirement.
``(B) Regulations.--The Secretary shall issue regulations
to carry out this paragraph, which shall--
``(i) set forth such circumstances of extreme distress and
emergency; and
``(ii) provide that such circumstances shall include any
instance in which the area in which a revitalization plan
assisted with amounts from a grant under this section is to
be carried out is subject to a declaration by the President
of a major disaster or emergency under the Robert T.
[[Page H313]]
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.''.
SEC. 4. PROHIBITION OF DEMOLITION-ONLY GRANTS.
Section 24 is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(3), by striking ``or demolition of
public housing (without replacement)'';
(2) in the first sentence of subsection (e)(3)--
(A) by striking ``demolition only,''; and
(B) by striking the last comma; and
(3) in subsection (e), by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(4) Prohibition of demolition-only grants.--The Secretary
may not make a grant under this section for a revitalization
plan that proposes to demolish public housing without
revitalization of any existing public housing dwelling
units.''.
SEC. 5. REPEAL OF MAIN STREET PROJECTS GRANT AUTHORITY.
Section 24 is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (n) (relating to grants for
assisting affordable housing developed through main street
projects in smaller communities);
(2) in subsection (a), by striking the last sentence (that
appears after and below paragraph (5), as added by section
2(4) of this Act);
(3) in subsection (l)--
(A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``, including a
specification of the amount and type of assistance provided
under subsection (n);'' and inserting ``; and''; and
(B) by striking paragraph (4); and
(4) in subsection (m), by striking paragraph (3).
SEC. 6. ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES.
Paragraph (1) of section 24(d) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``programs'' and inserting ``plans'';
(2) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``program'' and
inserting ``plan'';
(3) by striking subparagraph (J) and inserting the
following new subparagraph:
``(J) the acquisition and development of replacement
housing units in accordance with subsection (j);''.
(4) in subparagraph (K), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(5) in subparagraph (L)--
(A) by striking ``15 percent'' and inserting ``25
percent''; and
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting a
semicolon; and
(6) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(M) necessary costs of ensuring the effective relocation
of residents displaced as a result of the revitalization of
the project, including costs of monitoring as required under
subsection (k); and
``(N) activities undertaken to comply with the provisions
of (B)(vii) and (C)(xiii) of subsection (e)(2) and subsection
(l) (relating to green developments).''.
SEC. 7. SELECTION OF PROPOSALS FOR GRANTS.
(a) Selection Criteria.--Section 24(e) is amended by
striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following new
paragraph:
``(2) Grant award criteria.--
``(A) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish
criteria for the award of grants under this section.
``(B) Mandatory core components.--The criteria under this
paragraph shall require that a proposed revitalization plan
may not be selected for award of a grant under this section
unless the proposed plan meets all of the following
requirements:
``(i) Evidence of severe distress.--The proposed plan shall
contain evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the public
housing project that is subject to the plan is severely
distressed, which shall include--
``(I) a certification signed by an engineer or architect
licensed by a State licensing board that the project meets
the criteria for physical distress under subsection (t)(2);
and
``(II) such other evidence that the project meets criteria
for nonphysical distress under subsection (t)(2), such as
census data, crime statistics, and past surveys of
neighborhood stability conducted by the public housing
agency.
``(ii) Resident involvement and services.--The proposed
plan shall provide for opportunities for involvement of
residents of the housing subject to the plan and the
provision of services for such residents, in accordance with
subsection (g).
``(iii) Relocation plan.--The proposed plan shall provide a
plan for relocation of households occupying the public
housing project that is subject to the plan, in accordance
with subsection (h), including a statement of the estimated
number of vouchers for rental assistance under section 8 that
will be needed for such relocation.
``(iv) Resident right to expanded housing opportunities.--
The proposed plan provides right of resident households to
occupy housing provided under such revitalization plan in
accordance with subsection (i).
``(v) One-for-one replacement.--The proposed plan shall
provide a plan that--
``(I) provides for replacement in accordance with
subsection (j) of 100 percent of all dwelling units
demolished or disposed of under such revitalization plan, as
of the date of the application for the grant, on the site of
the original public housing or within the jurisdiction of the
public housing agency;
``(II) identifies the type of replacement housing that will
be offered to tenants displaced by the revitalization plan;
``(III) contains such agreements with or assurances by the
Secretary, State and local governmental agencies, and other
entities sufficient to ensure compliance with subsection (j)
and the requirements of section 18 applicable pursuant to
subsection (p)(1); and
``(IV) contains such assurances or agreements as the
Secretary considers necessary to ensure compliance with
subsection (i)(2).
``(vi) Fair housing; limitation on exclusion.--The proposed
plan shall be carried out in a manner that complies with
section (m) (relating to affirmatively furthering fair
housing and limitation on exclusion).
``(vii) Green developments.--The proposed plan complies
with the requirement under subsection (l) (relating to green
developments).
``(C) Mandatory graded components.--The criteria under this
paragraph shall provide that, in addition to the requirements
under subparagraph (B), the proposed revitalization plan
shall address and meet minimum requirements with respect to,
and shall provide additional priority based on the extent to
which the plan satisfactorily addresses, each of the
following issues:
``(i) Compliance with purposes.--The extent to which the
proposed plan of an applicant achieves the purposes of this
section set forth in subsection (a).
``(ii) Capability and record.--The extent of the capability
and record of the applicant public housing agency, public
partners, proposed private development partners, or any
alternative management entity for the agency, for managing
redevelopment or modernization projects, meeting performance
benchmarks, and obligating amounts in a timely manner,
including any past performance of such entities under the
HOPE VI program and any record of such entities of working
with socially and economically disadvantaged businesses, as
such term is defined in section 8(a)(4) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)(4)).
``(iii) Diversity outreach.--The extent to which the
proposed revitalization plan includes partnerships with
socially and economically disadvantaged businesses, as such
term is defined by section 8(a)(4) of the Small Business Act.
``(iv) Effectiveness of relocation and one-for-one
replacement plans.--The extent of the likely effectiveness of
the proposed revitalization plan for temporary and permanent
relocation of existing residents, including the likely
effectiveness of the relocation plan under subparagraph
(B)(iii) and the one-for-one replacement plan under
subparagraph (B)(v).
``(v) Achievability of revitalization plan.--The
achievability of the proposed revitalization plan pursuant to
subsection (o), with respect to the scope and scale of the
project.
``(vi) Leveraging.--The extent to which the proposed
revitalization plan will leverage other public or private
funds or assets for the project.
``(vii) Need for additional funding.--The extent to which
the applicant could undertake the activities proposed in the
revitalization plan without a grant under this section.
``(viii) Public and private involvement.--The extent of
involvement of State and local governments, private service
providers, financing entities, and developers, in the
development and ongoing implementation of the revitalization
plan.
``(ix) Need for affordable housing.--The extent of need for
affordable housing in the community in which the proposed
revitalization plan is to be carried out.
``(x) Affordable housing supply.--The extent of the supply
of other housing available and affordable to families
receiving tenant-based assistance under section 8.
``(xi) Project-based housing.--The extent to which the
proposed revitalization plan sustains or creates more
project-based housing units available to persons eligible for
residency in public housing in markets where the proposed
plan shows there is demand for the maintenance or creation of
such units.
``(xii) Green developments compliance.--The extent to which
the proposed revitalization plan--
``(I) in the case of residential construction, complies
with the nonmandatory items of the national Green Communities
criteria checklist identified in subsection (l)(1)(A), or any
substantially equivalent standard as determined by the
Secretary, but only to the extent such compliance exceeds the
compliance necessary to accumulate the number of points
required under such subsection; and
``(II) in the case of non-residential construction,
includes non-mandatory components of version 2.2 of the
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) green
building rating system for New Construction and Major
Renovations, version 2.0 of the LEED for Core and Shell
rating system, or version 2.0 of the LEED for Commercial
Interiors rating system, as applicable, or any substantially
equivalent standard as determined by the Secretary, but only
to the extent such inclusion exceeds the inclusion necessary
to accumulate the number of points required under such
system.
``(xiii) Hard-to-house families.--The extent to which the
one-for-one replacement plan under subparagraph (B)(v) for
the revitalization plan provides replacement housing that is
likely to be most appropriate and beneficial for families
whose housing needs are difficult to fulfill, including
individuals who are not ineligible for occupancy in public
housing pursuant to subsection (m)(2), have been released
from a State or Federal correctional facility, have not been
arrested for or charged with any crime during the period
beginning upon probation or parole and ending one year after
completion of probation or parole, and for whom affordable
housing is a critical need.
``(xiv) Family-friendly housing.--The extent to which
replacement housing units provided through the revitalization
plan contain a sufficient number of bedrooms to prevent
overcrowding.
``(xv) Additional on-site mixed-income housing.--The extent
to which the one-for-one replacement plan under subparagraph
(B)(v) provides public housing units in addition to the
number necessary to minimally comply with the requirement
under subsection (j)(2)(A)(i), including the extent to which
such plan provides
[[Page H314]]
sufficient housing for elderly and disabled residents who
indicate a preference to return to housing provided on the
site of the original public housing involved in the
revitalization plan and complies with the requirements of
subsection (j)(2)(A)(ii).
``(xvi) Other.--Such other factors as the Secretary
considers appropriate.''.
(b) Treatment of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Allocations;
Mandatory Site Visits.--Section 24(e), as amended by the
preceding provisions of this Act, is further amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(5) Treatment of low-income housing tax credit
allocation.--In the case of any application for a grant under
this section that relies on the allocation of any low-income
housing tax credit provided pursuant to section 42 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as part of the revitalization
plan proposed in the application, the Secretary shall not
require that the first phase of any project to be developed
under the plan possess an allocation of such low-income
housing tax credits at the time of such application.
``(6) Mandatory site visits.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary shall provide for appropriate
officers or employees of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development to conduct a visit to the site of the public
housing involved in the revitalization plan proposed under
each application for a grant under this section that is
involved in a final selection of applications to be funded
under this section. Site visits pursuant to this paragraph
shall be used only for the purpose of obtaining information
to assist in determining whether the public housing projects
involved in the application are severely distressed public
housing.''.
SEC. 8. REQUIREMENTS FOR MANDATORY CORE COMPONENTS.
Section 24 is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (h) through (m) as
subsections (q) through (v), respectively;
(2) by redesignating subsection (o) as subsection (w); and
(3) by striking subsection (g) and inserting the following
new subsections:
``(g) Resident Involvement and Services.--
``(1) In general.--Each revitalization plan assisted under
this section shall provide opportunities for the active
involvement and participation of, and consultation with,
residents of the public housing that is subject to the
revitalization plan during the planning process for the
revitalization plan, including prior to submission of the
application, and during all phases of the planning and
implementation. Such opportunities for participation may
include participation of members of any resident council, but
may not be limited to such members, and shall include all
segments of the population of residents of the public housing
that is subject to the revitalization plan, including single
parent-headed households, the elderly, young employed and
unemployed adults, teenage youth, and disabled persons. Such
opportunities shall include a process that provides
opportunity for comment on specific proposals for
redevelopment, any demolition and disposition involved, and
any proposed significant amendments or changes to the
revitalization plan.
``(2) Notices.--In carrying out a revitalization plan
assisted under this section, a public housing agency shall
provide the following written notices, in plain and
nontechnical language, to each household occupying a dwelling
unit in the public housing that is subject to, or to be
subject to, the plan:
``(A) Notice of intent.--Not later than the expiration of
the 30-day period beginning upon publication by the Secretary
of a notice of funding availability for a grant under this
section for such plan, notice of--
``(i) the public housing agency's intent to submit such
application;
``(ii) the proposed implementation and management of the
revitalized site;
``(iii) residents' rights under this section to participate
in the planning process for the plan, including opportunities
for participation in accordance with paragraph (1), and to
receive comprehensive relocation assistance and community and
supportive services pursuant to paragraph (4); and
``(iv) the public hearing pursuant to paragraph (3).
``(B) Notice of grant award and relocation options.--Not
later than 30 days after notice to the public housing agency
of the award of a grant under this section, notice that--
``(i) such grant has been awarded;
``(ii) describes the process involved under the
revitalization plan to temporarily relocate residents of the
public housing that is subject to the plan;
``(iii) provides the information required pursuant to
subsection (h)(2) (relating to relocation options); and
``(iv) informs residents of opportunities for participation
in accordance with paragraph (1).
``(C) Notice of grant agreement and relocation options.--
Not later than 30 days after execution of a grant agreement
under this section with a public housing agency, notice
that--
``(i) specifically identifies the housing available for
relocation of resident of the public housing subject to the
revitalization plan;
``(ii) sets forth the schedule for relocation of residents
of the public housing subject to the revitalization plan,
including the dates on which such housing will be available
for such relocation; and
``(iii) informs residents of opportunities for
participation in accordance with paragraph (1).
``(D) Notice of replacement housing.--Upon the availability
of replacement housing provided pursuant to subsection (j),
notice to each household described in subsection (i)(1) of--
``(i) such availability;
``(ii) the process and procedure for exercising the right
to expanded housing opportunities and preferences under
subsection (i)(2); and
``(iii) opportunities for participation in accordance with
paragraph (1) of this subsection.
``(E) Other.--Such other notices as the Secretary may
require.
``(3) Public hearing.--The Secretary may not make a grant
under this section to an applicant unless the applicant has
convened and conducted a public hearing regarding the
revitalization plan, including the one-for-one replacement to
occur under the plan, not later than 75 days before
submission of the application for the grant under this
section for such plan, at a time and location that is
convenient for residents of the public housing subject to the
plan.
``(4) Services.--Each recipient of a grant under this
section shall--
``(A) provide each household who is residing at the site of
the revitalization as of the date of the notice of intent
under subparagraph (A) with comprehensive relocation
assistance for a period that is the latter of the two periods
referred to in subparagraph (B) with comprehensive relocation
assistance; and
``(B) offer, to each such displaced resident and each low-
income family provided housing under the revitalization plan,
community and supportive services until the latter of--
``(i) the expiration of the two-year period that begins
upon the end of the development period under the plan; and
``(ii) the date on which all funding under the grant for
community and supportive services has been expended.
``(h) Relocation Program.--Each recipient of a grant under
this section shall--
``(1) provide for each household displaced by the
revitalization plan for which the grant is made to be
relocated to a comparable replacement dwelling, as defined in
section 101 of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601),
and for payment of actual and reasonable relocation expenses
of each such household and any replacement housing payments
as are required by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970;
``(2) fully inform such households of all relocation
options, which may include relocating to housing in a
neighborhood with a lower concentration of poverty than their
current residence or remaining in the housing to which they
relocate;
``(3) to the maximum extent possible, minimize academic
disruptions on affected children enrolled in school by
coordinating relocation with school calendars;
``(4) establish strategies and plans that assist such
displaced residents in utilizing tenant-based vouchers to
select housing opportunities, including in communities with a
lower concentration of poverty, that--
``(A) will not result in a financial burden to the family;
and
``(B) will promote long-term housing stability;
``(5) establish and comply with relocation benchmarks that
ensure successful relocation in terms of timeliness; and
``(6) notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the
case of any tenant-based assistance made available for
relocation of a household under this subsection, provide that
the term during which the household may lease a dwelling unit
using such assistance shall not be shorter than 150 days; if
the household is unable to lease a dwelling unit during such
period, the public housing agency shall either extend the
period during which the household may lease a dwelling unit
using such assistance or provide the tenant with the next
available dwelling unit owned by the public housing agency.
``(i) Right to Expanded Housing Opportunities for Resident
Households.--
``(1) In general.--Subject only to paragraph (3), each
revitalization plan assisted with a grant under this section
shall make available, to each household occupying a dwelling
unit in the public housing subject to a revitalization plan
that is displaced as a result of the revitalization plan
(including any demolition or disposition of the unit),
occupancy for such household in a replacement dwelling unit
provided pursuant to subsection (j). To exercise such right
under this paragraph to occupancy in such a replacement
dwelling unit, the household shall respond in writing to the
notice provided pursuant to subsection (g)(2)(C) by the
public housing agency.
``(2) Preferences.--Such a replacement dwelling unit shall
be made available to each household displaced as a result of
the revitalization plan before any replacement dwelling unit
is made available to any other eligible household.
``(3) Reports to secretary.--The Secretary shall require
each public housing agency carrying out a revitalization plan
assisted under this section to submit to the Secretary such
reports as may be necessary to allow the Secretary to
determine the extent to which the public housing agency has
complied with this subsection and to which displaced
residents occupy replacement housing provided pursuant to
subsection (j), which shall include information describing
the location of replacement housing provided pursuant to
subsection (j) and statistical information on the
characteristics of all households occupying such replacement
housing.
``(j) One-for-One Replacement.--Each revitalization plan
assisted with a grant under this section under which any
public housing dwelling unit is demolished or disposed of
shall provide as follows:
``(1) Number.--For one hundred percent of all such dwelling
units in existence as of the date of the application for the
grant that are demolished or disposed under the
revitalization plan, the public housing agency carrying out
the plan shall provide an additional dwelling unit.
[[Page H315]]
``(2) Location.--Such dwelling units shall be provided in
the following manner:
``(A) On-site mixed-income housing.--
``(i) One-third requirement.--A mixed-income housing
development shall be provided on the site of the original
public housing involved in the revitalization plan in which,
except as provided in clause (iii), at least one-third of all
dwelling units shall be public housing dwelling units and
shall be provided through the development of additional
public housing dwelling units.
``(ii) Requirements for additional on-site units.--If the
mixed-income housing development provided pursuant to clause
(i) includes more public housing dwelling units at the site
of the original public housing than is minimally necessary to
comply with such clause, the public housing agency shall
consult with residents, community leaders, and local
government officials regarding such additional public housing
dwelling units and shall ensure that such units are provided
in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing.
``(iii) Exception.--If, upon a showing by a public housing
agency, the Secretary determines that it is infeasible to
locate replacement dwelling units on the site of the original
public housing involved in the revitalization plan in
accordance with clause (i), all replacement units shall be
located in areas within the jurisdiction of the public
housing agency having low concentrations of poverty, except
that at least one mixed-income housing development shall be
provided in such an area within the jurisdiction of the
public housing agency and that one-third of all units in such
development shall be public housing dwelling units. The
Secretary may make a finding of infeasibility under this
clause only if--
``(I) such location on-site would result in the violation
of a consent decree; or
``(II) the land on which the public housing is located is
environmentally unsafe, geologically unstable, or otherwise
unsuitable for the construction of housing, as evidenced by
an independent environmental review or assessment.
``(iv) Deconcentration of poverty.--All dwelling units
provided pursuant to this subparagraph shall be provided in a
manner that results in decreased concentrations of poverty,
with respect to such concentrations existing on the date of
the application for the grant under this section.
``(B) Off-site mixed-income housing.--Any other replacement
housing units provided in addition to the dwelling units
provided pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be provided, in
areas within the jurisdiction of the public housing agency
having low concentrations of poverty, through--
``(i) the acquisition or development of additional public
housing dwelling units; or
``(ii) the acquisition, development, or contracting
(including through project-based assistance) of additional
dwelling units that are subject to requirements regarding
eligibility for occupancy, tenant contribution toward rent,
and long-term affordability restrictions which are comparable
to public housing units, except that subparagraphs (B) and
(D) of section 8(o)(13) of the United States Housing Act of
1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(13); relating to percentage
limitation and income-mixing requirement for project-based
assistance) shall not apply with respect to vouchers used to
comply with the requirements of this clause.
``(3) Timing.--All replacement dwelling units provided
pursuant to this subsection shall be provided not later than
the expiration of the 12-month period beginning upon the
demolition or disposition of the public housing dwelling
units, except that replacement dwelling units financed with a
low-income housing tax credit under section 42 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in connection with the
revitalization plan shall be provided not later than the
expiration of the 12-month period beginning upon the
allocation of such low-income housing tax credit. To the
greatest extent practicable, such replacement or additional
dwelling units, or redevelopment, shall be accomplished in
phases over time and, in each such phase, the public housing
dwelling units and the dwelling units described in
subparagraph (B)(ii) of paragraph (2) shall be made available
for occupancy before any nonassisted dwelling unit is made
available for occupancy.
``(4) Fair housing.--The demolition or disposition,
relocation, and provision of replacement housing units under
paragraph (2)(B) shall be carried out in a manner that
affirmatively furthers fair housing, as described in
subsection (e) of section 808 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 3608(e)).
``(k) Monitoring of Displaced Households.--
``(1) PHA responsibilities.--To facilitate compliance with
the requirement under subsection (i) (relating to right to
expanded housing opportunities), the Secretary shall, by
regulation, require each public housing agency that receives
a grant under this section, during the period of the
revitalization plan assisted with the grant and until all
funding under the grant has been expended--
``(A) to maintain a current address of residence and
contact information for each household affected by the
revitalization plan who was occupying a dwelling unit in the
housing that is subject to the plan; and
``(B) to provide such updated information to the Secretary
on at least a quarterly basis.
``(2) Certification.--The Secretary may not close out any
grant made under this section to a public housing agency
before the agency has certified to the Secretary that the
agency has complied with subsection (i) (relating to a right
to expanded housing opportunities for resident households)
with respect to each resident displaced as a result of the
revitalization plan, including providing occupancy in a
replacement dwelling unit for each household who requested
such a unit in accordance with such subsection.
``(3) Reports by secretary.--Not less frequently than once
every six months, the Secretary shall submit a report to the
Congress that includes all information submitted to the
Secretary pursuant to paragraph (1) by all public housing
agencies and summarizes the extent of compliance by public
housing agencies with the requirements under this subsection
and subsection (i).
``(l) Green Developments Requirement.--
``(1) Requirement.--The Secretary may not make a grant
under this section to an applicant unless the proposed
revitalization plan of the applicant to be carried out with
such grant amounts meets the following requirements, as
applicable:
``(A) Green communities criteria checklist.--All
residential construction under the proposed plan complies
with the national Green Communities criteria checklist for
residential construction that provides criteria for the
design, development, and operation of affordable housing, as
such checklist is in effect for purposes of this subsection
pursuant to paragraph (3) at the date of the application for
the grant, or any substantially equivalent standard as
determined by the Secretary, as follows:
``(i) The proposed plan shall comply with all items of the
national Green Communities criteria checklist for residential
construction that are identified as mandatory.
``(ii) The proposed plan shall comply with such other
nonmandatory items of such national Green Communities
criteria checklist so as to result in a cumulative number of
points attributable to such nonmandatory items under such
checklist of not less than--
``(I) 25 points, in the case of any proposed plan (or
portion thereof) consisting of new construction; and
``(II) 20 points, in the case of any proposed plan (or
portion thereof) consisting of rehabilitation.
``(B) LEED ratings system.--All non-residential
construction under the proposed plan complies with version
2.2 of the LEED for New Construction rating system, version
2.0 of the LEED for Core and Shell rating system, version 2.0
of the LEED for Commercial Interiors rating system, as such
systems are in effect for purposes of this subsection
pursuant to paragraph (3) at the time of the application for
the grant, at least to the minimum extent necessary to be
certified to the Silver Level under such system, or any
substantially equivalent standard as determined by the
Secretary.
``(2) Verification.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall verify, or provide
for verification, sufficient to ensure that each proposed
revitalization plan carried out with amounts from a grant
under this section complies with the requirements under
paragraph (1) and that the revitalization plan is carried out
in accordance with such requirements and plan.
``(B) Timing.--In providing for such verification, the
Secretary shall establish procedures to ensure such
compliance with respect to each grantee, and shall report to
the Congress with respect to the compliance of each grantee,
at each of the following times:
``(i) Not later than 60 days after execution of the grant
agreement under this section for the grantee.
``(ii) Upon completion of the revitalization plan of the
grantee.
``(3) Applicability and updating of standards.--
``(A) Applicability.--Except as provided in subparagraph
(B), the national Green Communities criteria checklist and
LEED rating systems referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B)
that are in effect for purposes of this subsection are such
checklist and systems as in existence upon the date of the
enactment of the HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act
of 2007.
``(B) Updating.--The Secretary may, by regulation, adopt
and apply, for purposes of this section, future amendments
and supplements to, and editions of, the national Green
Communities criteria checklist, the LEED rating systems, and
any standard that the Secretary has determined to be
substantially equivalent to such checklist or systems.
``(m) Fair Housing; Limitation on Exclusion.--
``(1) Fair housing.--Each revitalization plan assisted
under this section shall affirmatively further fair housing,
as described in subsection (e) of section 808 of the Civil
Rights Act of 1968.
``(2) Limitation on exclusion.--Except to the extent
necessary to comply with the requirements of this section,
replacement housing provided pursuant to subsection (j) under
a revitalization plan of a public housing agency that is
owned or managed, or assisted, by the agency shall be subject
to the same policies, practices, standards, and criteria
regarding waiting lists, tenant screening (including
screening criteria, such as credit checks), and occupancy
that apply to other housing owned or managed, or assisted,
respectively, by such agency. A household may not be
prevented from occupying a replacement dwelling unit provided
pursuant to subsection (j), or from being provided a tenant-
based voucher under the revitalization plan, except to the
extent specifically provided by any other provision of
Federal law (including subtitle F of title V of the Quality
Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 13661
et seq.; relating to safety and security in public and
assisted housing and ineligibility of drug criminals, illegal
drug users, alcohol abusers, and dangerous sex offenders),
subtitle D of title VI of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1992), (42 U.S.C. 13611 et seq.; relating
to preferences for elderly and disabled residents), and
section 16(f) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437n(f); relating to ineligibility of persons
convicted of methamphetamine offenses)).
[[Page H316]]
``(n) Enforcement.--
``(1) Administrative enforcement.--If the Secretary
determines on the record after opportunity for an agency
hearing, pursuant to a request made by any member of
household described in subsection (i)(1) who is adversely
affected or aggrieved by a violation of subsection (g), (h),
(i), (j), (k), (m), or (o), that such a violation has
occurred, the Secretary shall issue an order requiring the
public housing agency committing such violation to cease and
desist for such violation and to take any affirmative action
necessary to correct or remedy the conditions resulting from
such violation.
``(2) Availability of other remedies.--The remedy under
paragraph (1) shall be in addition to all other rights and
remedies provided by law.
``(o) Performance Benchmarks.--
``(1) In general.--Each public housing agency that receives
a grant under this section shall, in consultation with the
Secretary and residents of the public housing subject to the
revitalization plan for which the grant is made that are
displaced as a result of the revitalization plan, establish
performance benchmarks for each component of their
revitalization plan.
``(2) Failure to meet benchmarks.--If a public housing
agency fails to meet the performance benchmarks established
pursuant to paragraph (1), the Secretary shall impose
appropriate sanctions, including--
``(A) appointment of an alternative administrator for the
revitalization plan;
``(B) financial penalties;
``(C) withdrawal of funding under subsection (j); or
``(D) such other sanctions as the Secretary may deem
necessary.
``(3) Extension of benchmarks.--The Secretary shall extend
the period for compliance with performance benchmarks under
paragraph (1) for a public housing agency, for such period as
the Secretary determines to be necessary, if the failure of
the agency to meet such benchmarks is attributable to--
``(A) litigation;
``(B) obtaining approvals of the Federal Government or a
State or local government;
``(C) complying with environmental assessment and abatement
requirements;
``(D) relocating residents;
``(E) resident involvement that leads to significant
changes to the revitalization plan; or
``(F) any other reason established by the Secretary by
notice published in the Federal Register.
``(4) Authority of secretary.--In determining the amount of
each grant under this section and the closeout date for the
grant, the Secretary shall take into consideration the scope,
scale, and size of the revitalization plan assisted under the
grant.
``(p) Applicability of Other Laws.--
``(1) Section 18.--Any severely distressed public housing
demolished or disposed of pursuant to a revitalization plan
and any public housing developed in lieu of such severely
distressed housing shall be subject to the provisions of
section 18. To the extent the provisions of section 18
conflict with or are duplicative of the provisions of this
section, the provisions of this section solely shall apply.
``(2) URA.--The Uniform Relocation and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1974 shall apply to all
relocation activities pursuant to a revitalization plan under
this section.''.
SEC. 9. PLANNING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS.
Subsection (v) of section 24 (42 U.S.C. 1437v(v)), as so
redesignated by section 8(1), is amended by striking
paragraph (2) and inserting the following new paragraph:
``(2) Technical assistance grants.--Subject only to
approvable requests for grants pursuant to paragraph (1) for
any fiscal year, the Secretary shall use not less than two
percent for grants in such fiscal year to recipients of
grants under this section to assist such recipients in
obtaining technical assistance in carrying out revitalization
programs.''.
SEC. 10. ANNUAL REPORT; AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS.
Subsection (u) of section 24, as so redesignated by section
8(1) of this Act, is amended--
(1) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph:
``(4) the extent to which public housing agencies carrying
out revitalization plans with grants under this section have
complied with the requirements under subsection (i) (relating
to right to expanded housing opportunities for resident
households); and''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``To the extent not inconsistent with any other provisions of
law, the Secretary shall make publicly available through a
World Wide Web site of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development all documents of, or filed with, the Department
relating to the program under this section, including
applications, grant agreements, plans, budgets, reports, and
amendments to such documents; except that in carrying out
this sentence, the Secretary shall take such actions as may
be necessary to protect the privacy of any residents and
households displaced from public housing as a result of a
revitalization plan assisted under this section.''.
SEC. 11. DEFINITIONS.
Subsection (s) of section 24, as so redesignated by section
8(l) of this Act, is amended--
(1) in clauses (i) and (iii) of paragraph (1)(C), by
striking ``program'' each place such term appears and
inserting ``plan'';
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking ``Supportive'' and inserting ``Community
and supportive'';
(B) by inserting ``community and'' before ``supportive
services'';
(C) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, and such other services that, linked with
affordable housing, will improve the health and residential
stability of public housing residents''; and
(D) by inserting after ``transportation,'' the following:
``employment and vocational counseling, financial counseling,
life skills training,'';
(3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (6);
(4) by inserting after paragraph (2), the following new
paragraph:
``(5) Significant amendment or change.--The term
`significant' means, with respect to an amendment or change
to a revitalization plan, that the amendment or change--
``(A) changes the use of 10 percent or more of the funds
provided under the grant made under this section for the plan
from use for one activity to use for another;
``(B) eliminates an activity that, notwithstanding the
change, would otherwise be carried out under the plan; or
``(C) changes the scope, location, or beneficiaries of the
project carried out under the plan.'';
(5) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (4); and
(6) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraphs:
``(2) Comprehensive relocation assistance.--The term
`comprehensive relocation assistance' means comprehensive
assistance necessary to relocate the members of a household,
and includes counseling, including counseling regarding
housing options and locations and use of tenant-based
assistance, case management services, assistance in locating
a suitable residence, site tours, and other assistance.
``(3) Development.--The term `development' has the same
meaning given such term in the first sentence of paragraph
(1) of section 3(c) (42 U.S.C. 1437a).''.
SEC. 12. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.
Paragraph (1) of section 24(f) is amended by striking
``programs'' and inserting ``plans''.
SEC. 13. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Subsection (v)(1) of section 24, as so redesignated by
section 8(1) of this Act, is amended by striking all that
follows ``section'' and inserting ``$800,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2008 through 2015.''.
SEC. 14. EXTENSION OF PROGRAM.
Subsection (w) of section 24, (as so redesignated by
section 8(2) of this Act) is amended by striking ``September
30, 2007'' and inserting ``September 30, 2015''.
SEC. 15. REVIEW.
The Comptroller General of the United States shall--
(1) conduct a review of activities, actions, and methods
used in revitalization plans assisted under section 24 of the
United States Housing Act of 1937 to determine which may be
transferable to other federally-assisted housing programs;
and
(2) make recommendations to the Congress regarding the
activities, actions, and methods reviewed under paragraph (1)
not later than the expiration of the 3-year period beginning
on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 16. REGULATIONS.
Section 24, as amended by the preceding provisions of this
Act, is further amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(x) Regulations.--Not later than the expiration of the
120-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of the
HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2007, the
Secretary shall issue regulations to carry out this section,
including the amendments made by such Act.''.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order
except those printed in House Report 110-509. Each amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report; by a Member designated
by the report; shall be considered read; shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent of the amendment; shall not be subject to
amendment; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Waters
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed
in House Report 110-509.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Ms. Waters:
Page 9, strike lines 7 through 12, and insert the
following:
``(I)(aa) provides for replacement in accordance with
subsection (j) of 100 percent of all dwelling units in
existence as of January 1, 2005, that are subject to the
revitalization plan and that have been or will be demolished
or disposed of, on the site of''.
Page 9, line 15, before the semicolon insert the following:
``, or (bb) pursuant to subsection (j)(1)(B), requests a
reduction of the percentage specified in subsection (j)(1)(A)
and provides for replacement of dwelling units demolished or
disposed of in accordance with the percentage requested''.
Page 9, line 18, strike ``tenants'' and insert
``residents''.
Page 9, strike ``and'' in line 24 and all that follows
through ``(p)(1)'' on page 10, line 2, and insert ``(as
modified by any percentage reduction requested under
subsection (j)(1)(B))''.
Page 11, line 9, before the comma insert ``(including
nonprofit housing developers)''.
[[Page H317]]
Page 13, line 4, before the last comma insert ``(including
nonprofit housing developers)''.
Page 14, line 9, after ``standard'' insert ``or
standards''.
Strike line 16 on page 14 and all that follows through page
15, line 5, and insert the following: ``construction,
complies with the components of the green building rating
systems and levels identified by the Secretary pursuant to
subsection (l)(3), but only to the extent such compliance
exceeds the minimum level required under such systems and
levels.''.
Page 15, line 13, before ``individuals'' insert ``, but not
limited to, elderly households, disabled households,
households consisting of grandparents raising grandchildren,
large families, households displaced by the revitalization
plan in need of special services, and''.
Page 15, line 16, strike ``State or Federal correctional
facility'' and insert ``prison, jail, or other correctional
facility of the Federal Government, a State government, or a
unit of local government''.
Page 17, after line 21, insert the following:
(c) Exclusion of Green Development Costs From Total
Development Costs.--Subsection (f) of section 24 is amended
by adding after and below paragraph (2) the following:
``In determining the total development costs for a
revitalization plan, the Secretary shall not consider any
costs of compliance with green building rating systems and
levels identified by the Secretary pursuant to subsection
(l)(3).''.
Page 21, line 6, before ``dates'' insert ``approximate''.
Page 23, after line 3, insert the following new paragraph:
``(5) Significant amendments or changes to plan.--A public
housing agency may not carry out any significant amendment or
change to a revitalization plan unless--
``(A) the public housing agency has convened and conducted
a public hearing regarding the significant amendment or
change at a time and location that is convenient for
residents of the public housing subject to the plan and has
provided each household occupying a dwelling unit in such
public housing with written notice of such hearing not less
than 10 days before such hearing; and
``(B) after such hearing, the public housing agency
consults with the households occupying dwelling units in the
public housing that are subject to, or to be subject to the
plan, and the agency submits a report to the Secretary
describing the results of such consultation; and
``(C) the Secretary approves the significant amendment or
change.
Notwithstanding subparagraph (C), if the Secretary does not
approve or disapprove a request for a significant amendment
or change to a revitalization plan before the expiration of
the 30-day period beginning upon the receipt by the Secretary
of the report referred to in subparagraph (B), such request
shall be considered to have been approved.''.
Page 24, line 20, strike ``either''.
Page 24, line 22, strike ``or provide the tenant'' and
insert ``and continue to provide the household with
comprehensive relocation assistance, or at the option of the
household, provide the household''.
Page 26, strike line 13, and insert the following:
``(1) Number.--
``(A) In general.--For one hundred percent, or such lower
percentage as is provided pursuant to subparagraph (B), of
all''.
Page 26, strike ``the date'' in line 14 and all that
follows through line 16 and insert the following: ``January
1, 2005, that are subject to the revitalization plan and that
have been or will be demolished or disposed of, the public
hous-''.
Page 26, after line 18, insert the following:
``(B) Waiver.--
``(i) Authority.--Upon the written request of a public
housing agency submitted as part of an application for a
grant under this section, the Secretary may reduce the
percentage applicable under subparagraph (A) to a
revitalization plan of the agency to not less than 90
percent, but only if--
``(I) the Secretary determines that such written request
has sufficiently demonstrated a compelling need for such
reduction due to extenuating circumstances, which shall
include--
``(aa) a judgment, consent decree, or other order of a
court that limits the ability of the public housing agency to
comply with such requirements;
``(bb) a severe shortage of land available to comply with
such requirements; and
``(cc) such other circumstances as the Secretary determines
on a case-by-case basis; and
``(II) the reduction is narrowly tailored such that it--
``(aa) reduces the percentage only to the extent necessary
to address the particular extenuating circumstances
demonstrated pursuant to subclause (I); and
``(bb) is limited in a manner that ensures the maximum
extent of compliance with the requirements of this
subsection.
``(ii) Required and impermissible considerations.--In
determining whether a compelling need for a reduction
pursuant to this subparagraph exists, and extenuating
circumstances exist, for purposes of clause (i), the
Secretary--
``(I) shall take into consideration the extent and
circumstances of any vacant public housing dwelling units of
the public housing agency;
``(II) shall take into consideration the extent to which
revitalization plan provides additional amenities that will
improve the quality of the life of residents by increasing
open space or by providing health care or day care facilities
or by providing larger units to accommodate families; and
``(III) shall not base any such determination solely or
primarily upon any financial hardship of a public housing
agency or any other financial condition or consideration.
``(iii) No waiver of time limits.--The Secretary may not,
under this subparagraph, waive any requirement of paragraph
(3) (relating to timing). The preceding sentence may not be
construed to limit or otherwise affect the authority under
subsection (o)(3).
``(iv) Penalty.--If, pursuant to this subparagraph, the
Secretary reduces the percentage under subparagraph (A)
applicable to the revitalization plan of a public housing
agency, no grant under this section may be made to such
agency or for any public housing of such agency at any time
that such agency is not in full compliance with the
requirements of this paragraph, as modified by the terms of
such reduction.''.
Page 30, after line 2, insert the following:
``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if a public housing
agency has limited areas within its jurisdiction having low
concentrations of poverty, the replacement housing units
provided in addition to the dwelling units provided pursuant
to subparagraph (A) may be provided within a 25-mile radius
of the mixed-income development referred to in subparagraph
(A).''.
Page 30, strike line 3 and all that follows through
``credit.'' in line 13, and insert the following:
``(3) Timing.--All replacement dwelling units required
pursuant to this subsection with respect to the
revitalization plan of a public housing agency shall be
provided not later than the expiration of the 54-month period
that begins upon the execution of the grant agreement under
this section for the revitalization plan of the public
housing agency.''.
Page 31, after line 2, insert the following:
``(5) Project-based vouchers.--There are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal
years 2009 through 2015 for providing replacement vouchers
for project-based rental assistance for the purpose of
complying with the one-for-one replacement requirement under
this subsection.''.
Page 33, line 1, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''.
Page 33, line 3, after ``standard'' insert ``or
standards''.
Strike line 22 on page 33 and all that follows through page
34, line 9, and insert the following:
``(B) Green buildings certification system.--All non-
residential construction under the proposed plan complies
with all minimum required levels of the green building rating
systems and levels identified by the Secretary pursuant to
paragraph (3), as such systems and levels are in effect for
purposes of this subsection pursuant to paragraph (4) at the
time of the application for the grant.''.
Page 35, after line 5, insert the following:
``(3) Identification of green buildings rating systems and
levels.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this section, the
Secretary shall identify rating systems and levels for green
buildings that the Secretary determines to be the most likely
to encourage a comprehensive and environmentally-sound
approach to ratings and standards for green buildings. The
identification of the ratings systems and levels shall be
based on the criteria specified in subparagraph (B), shall
identify the highest levels the Secretary determines are
appropriate above the minimum levels required under the
systems selected. Within 90 days of the completion of each
study required by subparagraph (C), the Secretary shall
review and update the rating systems and levels, or identify
alternative systems and levels for purposes of this section,
taking into account the conclusions of such study.
``(B) Criteria.--In identifying the green rating systems
and levels, the Secretary shall take into consideration--
``(i) the ability and availability of assessors and
auditors to independently verify the criteria and measurement
of metrics at the scale necessary to implement this
subsection;
``(ii) the ability of the applicable ratings system
organizations to collect and reflect public comment;
``(iii) the ability of the standards to be developed and
revised through a consensus-based process;
``(iv) an evaluation of the robustness of the criteria for
a high-performance green building, which shall give credit
for promoting--
``(I) efficient and sustainable use of water, energy, and
other natural resources;
``(II) use of renewable energy sources;
``(III) improved indoor environmental quality through
enhanced indoor air quality, thermal comfort, acoustics, day
lighting, pollutant source control, and use of low-emission
materials and building system controls; and
``(IV) such other criteria as the Secretary determines to
be appropriate; and
``(v) national recognition within the building industry.
``(C) 5-year evaluation.--At least once every five years,
the Secretary shall conduct a study to evaluate and compare
available third-party green building rating systems and
levels, taking into account the criteria listed in
subparagraph (B).''.
[[Page H318]]
Page 35, line 6, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''.
Page 35, lines 10 and 11, strike `` LEED rating systems''
and insert ``green building rating systems and levels''.
Page 35, line 12, after ``(B)'' insert ``of paragraph
(1)''.
Page 35, line 13, strike ``and systems'' and insert ``,
systems, and levels''.
Page 35, strike lines 21 through 24 and insert the
following: ``criteria checklist, any standard or standards
that the Secretary has determined to be substantially
equivalent to such checklist, and the green building ratings
systems and levels identified by the Secretary pursuant to
paragraph (3).''.
Page 35, line 25, strike ``Limitation on Exclusion'' and
insert ``Consistent Eligibility and Occupancy Standards''.
Page 36, line 5, strike ``Limitation on exclusion'' and
insert ``Consistent eligibility and occupancy standards''.
Strike ``. A household'' in line 15, on page 36 and all
that follows through page 37, line 7, and insert the
following: ``, including requirements under Federal law
relating to safety and security in public and assisted
housing and ineligibility of drug criminals, illegal drug
users, alcohol abusers, and dangerous sex offenders,
preferences for elderly and disabled residents, and
ineligibility of persons convicted of methamphetamine
offenses.''.
Page 37, after line 7, insert the following:
``(3) Consistent occupancy standards for displaced
families.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2), any household who
occupied a dwelling unit in public housing subject to a
revitalization plan of a public housing agency and that was
displaced as a result of the revitalization shall be subject,
for purposes of occupancy in replacement housing provided
pursuant to subsection (j) under the replacement plan that is
owned or managed, or assisted, by the agency, only to
policies, practices, standards, criteria, and requirements
regarding continued occupancy in such original public housing
(and not to initial occupancy).''.
Page 38, line 7, after the period insert the following:
``Such benchmarks shall include completion of the provision
of all replacement dwelling units provided pursuant to the
requirements of subsection (j)''.
Page 39, after line 5, insert the following:
``(D) project delays and cost increases due to shortages in
labor and materials as a direct result of location in an area
that is subject to a declaration by the President of a major
disaster or emergency under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
and Emergency Assistance Act, except that an extension of the
period for compliance with performance benchmarks pursuant to
this subparagraph shall not be for a period longer than 12
months;''.
Page 39, line 6, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(E)''.
Page 39, line 7, strike ``(E)'' and insert ``(F)''.
Page 39, line 9, strike ``(F)'' and insert ``(G)''.
Strike line 17 on page 39 and all that follows through
``(2) URA.--'' on page 40, line 1, and insert the following:
``(p) Applicability of Uniform Relocation Act.--''.
Page 42, lines 17 and 18, strike ``10 percent or more of
the funds'' and insert ``20 percent or more of the total
amount of HOPE VI grant amounts provided under this
section''.
Page 44, after line 18, insert the following:
SEC. 16. EXTENSION OF AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR
REVITALIZATION PLANS DELAYED BY HURRICANES.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development may not, before October 1,
2009, recapture any portion of a grant made to a public
housing agency to carry out a revitalization plan under
section 24 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437v) if the public housing agency has suffered, as a
direct result of Hurricane Katrina, Wilma, or Rita of 2005--
(1) project delays; and
(2) cost increases due to shortages in labor and materials.
Page 44, line 19, strike ``SEC. 16.'' and insert ``SEC.
17.''.
Page 45, after line 2, insert the following:
SEC. 18. NON-CITIZEN ELIGIBILITY RESTRICTIONS.
No person not lawfully permitted to be in or remain in the
United States is eligible for housing assistance under this
Act or the amendments made by this Act. Nothing in this Act
or the amendments made by this Act alters the rules under
section 214 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1980 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1436a).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 922, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Financial Services, Barney Frank, and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman
Mel Watt for their strong support of the manager's amendment to H.R.
3524.
In the manager's amendment filed before this committee, we worked
very hard to address concerns that had been raised by the minority,
housing advocates, resident organizations, housing authorities, and
others to ensure that we have a bill that is achievable and responsive
to the needs of low-income families and communities.
In the manager's amendment we maintain more of our public housing
stock by requiring the replacement of any units in existence as of
January 1, 2005; provide an extremely limited waiver of the one-for-one
requirement in special circumstances, such as a court decree or a
severe shortage of land, and impose a penalty on those housing
authorities who receive a waiver but fail to meet their obligations
under it; allow replacement units to be built outside the jurisdiction
of the housing authority in the event the housing authority's
jurisdiction is limited in the number of low-poverty areas; extend the
timeline for rebuilding from 12 to 54 months; increase resident
involvement in decisions surrounding significant changes to HOPE VI
plans; exclude green building from total development costs; provide
flexibility in nonresidential green development standards; protect
grantees affected by cost increases and project delays as a result of
the 2005 hurricanes from recapture of their funds; and provide that
HOPE VI housing assistance is only for persons who are legally present
in the United States.
These changes will greatly improve the bill and build upon the
success of the HOPE VI program. Since this program's inception in 1992,
we have all watched it at work in our districts and wondered how it
could work better. We have all seen families displaced and heard
stories about families disappearing into thin air because of these
developments. We have seen the units come down and seen a reduced
number come back up. We know that HOPE VI can and must do better.
This manager's amendment as well as the underlying bill will go far
into making this a program that truly gives hope to low-income
families. I urge you to support the manager's amendment and the
underlying bill and to remember that this bill is about maintaining
housing for our low-income families. They need our support.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition,
although I am not opposed to the manager's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West Virginia
is recognized for 10 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would like to thank the chairman and the chairwoman of the
subcommittee, Ms. Waters, for reaching across the aisle and working on
some of the very serious concerns that we had about the original bill.
I would like to speak specifically about one area, the one-for-one
replacement. We have heard a lot of discussion about that on the floor
in the beginning arguments. But in this manager's amendment, there is
much more flexibility in the one-for-one replacement. It also allows
the Secretary to have some flexibility, and I think that means we will
have more meaningful housing, housing with more vision on how to
improve family and home life.
Another thing is the development timeline. In the original bill, the
development timeline was 12 months. I can't imagine myself trying to
build large projects such as these and have everything in 12 months. So
that deadline was extended to 54 months, which I think was a very good
move.
Also on the green building requirements, I have an amendment coming
forward to ask for flexibility again in the green building
requirements. But in the manager's amendment, some revisions were made,
and I think it's moving us a step in the right direction.
I myself support the manager's amendment. I think that a lot of the
changes that were made were made in response to what we were hearing in
our various offices from not only individuals but various groups their
concern for the best way to put forward affordable housing, HOPE VI,
and make sure that what we build stands up to the challenges of the
future.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
[[Page H319]]
from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), who spent a lot of time working on this
manager's amendment and this bill.
Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Madam Chairman, I want to congratulate first Chairman Frank and
Subcommittee Chairwoman Waters, both from the Financial Services
Committee, for their great work in bringing forward to the floor this
reauthorization bill for the important HOPE VI program.
I am a supporter of the manager's amendment, and I want to say a few
words from an appropriator's perspective here as the chairman of the
Appropriations Subcommittee that deals with HUD.
In America, we have at least 10 million American families who live
below or near the poverty line who are struggling to make ends meet and
working largely in minimum wage or near minimum wage jobs and part-time
jobs. We appropriate voucher rental assistance for roughly 2\1/2\
million of those families through the tenant and project basis, and
they're costly. We also appropriate monies to provide operations for
the roughly 600,000 units which are under our public housing
authorities all over the country.
The HOPE VI program is our only program that allows for total
renovation of replacement of family housing units in that group that
are under the public housing authorities in cities and towns all over
the country. All 10 million of those families dream about better jobs
and owning a home, but with incomes so limited, the family budget gets
destabilized if there is a job loss or an unanticipated health problem
in the family, and they end up being the most vulnerable people for
predatory lending practices that have become so obvious in the mortgage
disclosure crisis if they are trying to make ends meet and trying to
have homeownership. Those are exactly the families that would benefit
the most from reduced monthly energy bills, and they are the most in
need of that help.
Under the bill before us, HOPE VI projects must meet energy saving
requirements embodied in the green community criteria established by
Enterprise Partners, the American Planning Association, the American
Institute of Architects, and the Natural Resource Defense Council,
among others, who have put forth a comprehensive set of criteria which
include siting of buildings to maximize passive solar heating and
cooling, siting near public transportation, using Energy Star highly
efficient appliances, using water fixtures that save water and energy.
A study of 20 already completed projects using these standards showed
an average of 2.4 percent only in construction cost increase, but that
cost is recovered within 5 to 7 years by lower monthly energy bills.
{time} 1200
For the rest of the 50- to 100-year lifetime of the public housing,
the moneys, those savings go back to the individual families, and it
requires us to appropriate less money to the public housing authority.
So it's a very important program.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield my remaining time to
the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Bachus of Alabama.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's
amendment, and I would like to commend the majority on addressing
several of our concerns. I think particularly the developmental
timeline is very significant. I think it's a much more practical way of
dealing with notifying tenants about changes, eligibility standards are
much improved, and the provision on illegal aliens.
I do think that the one-on-one replacement provision, and I very much
appreciate you, I think, making a good change, and I think it allows
more of our Members to support the underlying bill. I do intend to
continue to support doing away with the one-on-one replacement for the
reasons I said in earlier debate, because I still believe that for most
people the best option is for them to move out of this concentrated
housing. I also think it has an unintended consequence of restricting
the ability to create a mixed-income community that you attract a mix
of individuals into.
So I will support the Neugebauer amendment. I think the green
building requirement, it does do away with some specific references to
the LEED rating standard. However, the Green Communities rating system
for residential construction remains in the bill, and I believe that we
have got to give more flexibility. Let's be environmentally sound, but
let's don't adopt one standard, particularly as expressed by the
Carpenters Union, the Laborers Union, also the National Home Builders.
Let's not discriminate against American wood products.
As we continue to move forward, I am sure that the cooperation you
all have shown today will manifest itself, and we will continue to work
on that. I will support, and I believe very much we need Mrs. Capito's
amendments on the green building requirement.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I again appreciate the gentlewoman's
courtesy, as I appreciate her leadership on this, and that of my
friend, Mr. Olver.
There is a difference between flexibility in green building standards
and gutting the provision altogether. Having green building standards
should not be merely one factor that is considered, as will be proposed
by the gentlewoman's amendment later in the game. The manager's
amendment provides flexibility and allows the Secretary to deal with
compliance. It does not have strict LEED certification, but still
retains that environmental green building standard. Frankly, the notion
that we just dismiss this as merely one factor to be considered is
going to be regarded in the years to come as an embarrassingly
shortsighted proposal.
As I mentioned earlier in the debate we in Portland used HOPE VI to
create an environmentally-sensitive community that actually provided
twice as many housing units as had been on the site before, using HOPE
VI as an anchor for more investment and as a development model. The
provisions that are in the underlying bill and the manager's amendment
will provide more environmentally-sensitive construction and, frankly,
the costs are going to be recovered in relatively short order, as my
friend from Massachusetts pointed out, in savings, not just from
energy, but also water and sewer as well.
These costs are going up exponentially over time. Having this wired
into the HOPE VI provision means that it is a better investment for the
community and a better investment for the Federal Government. It's
going to save the Federal Government and the tenants money over the
long haul. There is absolutely no reason to water it down.
I strongly urge approval of the manager's amendment and rejection of
the subsequent amendment.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank all of the people
that I have identified on this side of the aisle today, plus people I
have not identified on the opposite side of the aisle. It has been very
enjoyable working with Mrs. Capito, I have appreciated the work of Mr.
Shays, and of course my old friend, Mr. Bachus, even though we disagree
on some things; and Mr. Neugebauer. We have all come to the conclusion
certainly that HOPE VI is a valuable program and that all of our
communities can benefit from it.
We have a few different views about one-for-one, we have a few
different views about Davis-Bacon maybe, the destruction of units, and
the green requirements. But this is one bill that both sides of the
aisle understand very thoroughly that America is going to benefit. Mr.
Bachus reminded us, even though I know that he understands, that the
reason for HOPE VI is to deal with those public housing projects, those
developments that were in great disrepair, that needed to be replaced,
that needed to be restored, and not just the physical makeup, not just
the buildings; but we also understood that what was wrong with our
public housing developments was lack of services.
Many of these developments are like little towns, little cities
without services. We all know and appreciate they need after-school,
they need health care, they need all kinds of support for families, and
job development. All of those things we all support, and I would not
challenge my Members on the opposite side of the aisle on any of those
issues.
[[Page H320]]
I would like to thank them for the tremendous cooperation they have
given, and the staffs have worked so well together to resolve a lot of
questions to get us to the point that we are today; and while we will
go through a few amendments, I feel very, very good that this very,
very big and complicated bill has received such wonderful support.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Holden). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Neugebauer
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 110-509.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Neugebauer:
Page 9, line 4, before the period insert ``for occupied
units''.
Page 9, line 11, after the comma insert ``occupied''.
Page 26, line 9, before the period insert ``for Occupied
Units''.
Page 26, line 14, strike ``in existence'' and insert
``occupied''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 922, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I believe there is a concept that I strongly support, and one that I
think a lot of Members of this body support, that when government is
too prescriptive, then good ideas and innovation get suppressed. This
is the reason I brought forward this amendment, because in H.R. 3524,
it requires that all housing units demolished under the HOPE VI grant
program be replaced on a one-for-one basis. What we know is that this
is a new provision in the HOPE VI program. One of the things that
concerns me most about this is in many cases it is not necessarily
feasible for us to go back on a one-for-one basis, nor may it be a need
in that particular community.
Chairman Waters and I had a chance to travel down to New Orleans and
see some of the activities going on down there, and what we saw is some
units that were brought back on a one-for-one basis that were vacant,
were unoccupied, which indicated there may be some resistance to coming
back to that particular neighborhood.
What we also know with the HOPE VI program is that this program was
designed to replace some very terrible housing conditions, an old,
failed system of putting all of these low-income systems in a very
concentrated area, and we found out very quickly that that was not a
successful program. So now with this particular legislation we are
going to go back and say we didn't learn our lesson the first time; we
are going to go back with these kinds of concentrations in these
neighborhoods, which have already shown to fail.
The other thing that I think needs to be brought out is in some cases
there may be land constraints that make this not feasible to go back
for one-for-one. The second piece of it is that housing and
demographics have changed since a lot of these units have been built.
What we are learning now is that we can do these mixed-use projects
where we bring moderate and low-income families together and not
putting all of these low-income families in one place. We have also
learned a lot about the density, the environment, where we have open
spaces for children to play, and we are not forcing them to play in the
streets.
So there's a lot of things that we do better now, but we are trying
to limit using some of those new techniques and new innovations in
housing by going back to the old model.
One of the things that I think has been brought out in this debate is
that this is not a debate about whether HOPE VI is a good program or
not. I want to be clear about that, that when I stand before this body
today and say we shouldn't be too prescriptive, I am not talking about
not funding this HOPE VI program or reauthorizing it. I think we did
some things that actually did make this better, but being too
prescriptive begins to deny the ability of communities to sit down and
decide what is the best footprint to provide good quality housing for
our low-income residents, and they deserve that. For us to stand up and
say this body of 435 here and 100 on the other side, that we know more
about what the housing needs are in these communities around America, I
think is a little ludicrous.
We need to empower the local governments and the housing authorities
to be able to sit down and say, look, we have got these old and
dilapidated units, people don't want to live in them, some are vacant,
some are occupied, and some of them probably shouldn't be occupied, but
for the United States Congress to say we know more about your housing
needs in your community, I think is poor policy.
That is the reason I am going to be encouraging my colleagues today
to vote for the Neugebauer amendment that takes out the provision of
being too prescriptive, allowing American cities and communities and
housing authorities to make the right decisions for our low-income
folks.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I appreciate the cooperative spirit, and
we should note that the one-for-one replacement will remain in effect,
but there's a question about what it accomplishes.
Let me describe the one-for-one replacement, because it is not nearly
as prescriptive as my friend would have indicated. In the first place,
communities will have 54 months after the demolition with which to
replace the housing. Secondly, it does not have to be new public
housing. We have explicitly added here the ability to do project-based
vouchers. We have worked with some of those who in fact try to do HOPE
VI, to make it more flexible.
Third, there's a waiver in here. One of the factors in the waiver,
the gentleman from Texas correctly mentioned open spaces, one of the
desirable things. My colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Capuano, offered
an amendment that has been incorporated into the manager's amendment
that would say when you apply for a waiver, your willingness to put in
more open space would be one of the justifications for a waiver for
one-for-one. So we do have flexibility.
On the other hand, I reject the notion that we shouldn't be
prescriptive here. This is not the Federal Government reaching out and
telling people what to do. This is a restriction on the expenditure of
Federal funds for a limited purpose. Here is the problem: we do have a
shortage of affordable housing units. We do not want to see a Federal
program contribute to a diminution of that. We allowed flexibility in
the replacement.
Here's the problem with the gentleman's amendment: most of the people
who run housing authorities are decent, hardworking people who have
taken on a tough job, and we have tried to help them. But there are
political situations in some community where the people running housing
authorities are not supportive of this purpose.
What the gentleman's amendment says is if they leave the units
vacant, they can then permanently get rid of the units. That is the
problem. Going forward it gives people an incentive or reward not to
fill the units. Most housing authorities won't be like that, but there
is incompetence and there are people who for political reasons say, We
don't want these people, they are too much of a problem.
So rewarding housing authorities for leaving units vacant by allowing
them,
[[Page H321]]
if the people left them vacant may want to have fewer housing units,
allowing them that is a very bad idea. We should have flexibility, I
agree with the gentleman. But that is flexibility with the waiver; that
is flexibility in how you deliver placement. In other words, show why
you're trying to do it. But to diminish the requirement at the outset
arbitrarily to reward people for leaving units vacant, to reward the
incompetence. People say, We have got too many other units here. We're
going to leave them vacant. Remember, elderly housing is a major
component. That would be a very grave error.
{time} 1215
We have, I believe, in much of this country a shortage.
Now, if a community comes forward and says to HUD, You know what,
there is no population here left anymore, there is nobody who wants to
live here anymore, those are considerations that can be put into the
waiver. So we agree there should be flexibility. That is why we have a
waiver component.
By the way, in addition to open space, if you show you are going to
do day care facilities, if you show you are going to do health care
facilities, that can further justify fewer units. If you say you are
going to build more large units for large families, yes, you can trade
in a couple of small units for a large unit. All of those are
encouraged.
The only thing we disagree with, because we believe we have built
flexibility in here, is, as I said, to give people in some cases those
who are, and it is not the majority by any means, people who are not
supportive of this, give them an incentive to leave housing vacant.
Now, let me say this to the gentleman: His amendment didn't say
housing that was physically unoccupiable. I agree the bill does not
make that consideration. I would say to the gentleman, going forward,
we might be able to work on a situation where units that were
physically not habitable might not be counted. I agree with that. If
that was the amendment, I think we might be working something out, and
I hope we will as it goes forward. But what the gentleman's amendment
says, units that are perfectly in good shape, that the authority either
can't rent because they are incompetent or decides not to, that those
can be disregarded.
So I hope the amendment is defeated. But I would promise to work with
the gentleman as we go forward so that units that are in fact not
habitable, not occupiable, would not be counted.
I would yield to the gentleman.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the gentleman. I do understand that there
could be a small minority of housing authorities trying to accomplish
some purpose by keeping those units vacant, but I would say we are
being probably more prescriptive for the ones that are vacant.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Taking back my time, I would agree with
that if we didn't have a waiver in there, if we didn't have a variety
of ways of meeting the one-for-one replacement. It is not all public
housing. In fact, one of the things I plan to do in future legislation
in cooperation with my colleagues is to go to some of the other housing
programs we may have, maybe the Low Income Housing Fund or others, and
give a preference to housing authorities who have that HOPE VI
obligation. So, in other words, there would be a wide variety of ways
in which they could replace the housing, not simply by public housing,
because, I agree, that would be self-defeating.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. If the gentleman would yield, I would appreciate
working with the gentleman on that particular provision of making sure
that those units that are not habitable now would not be counted.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I appreciate that. I thank the gentleman.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Mahoney of Florida
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 110-509.
Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Mahoney of Florida:
Page 5, strike lines 8 through 23, and insert the
following:
SEC. 5. MAIN STREET PROJECTS GRANTS.
Section 24 is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (n) as subsection (y);
(2) in subsection (l), by striking ``subsection (n)'' each
place such term appears and inserting ``subsection (y)''; and
(3) in subsection (m)(3), by striking ``subsection (n)''
and inserting ``subsection (y)''.
Page 40, strike lines 19 and 20 and insert the following:
(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new
paragraph:
Page 40, line 21, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
Page 44, line 21, strike ``by adding at the end'' and
inserting ``by inserting before subsection (y) (as so
redesignated by section 5(1) of this Act)''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 922, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Mahoney) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an
amendment that will preserve the HOPE VI Main Street Grant program.
This program, important to rural communities with very small
populations, was created with the passage of the American Dream Act of
2003. Since its inception, the program has helped a small number of
rural communities develop affordable housing units in conjunction with
larger revitalization efforts.
The creation of the HOPE VI Main Street Grant program in 2003 is
important to rural communities because it allows rural communities to
compete with larger urban areas for HOPE VI dollars.
Mr. Chairman, for those not familiar with the program, the HOPE VI
Main Street grants are funded through a 5 percent set-aside in the HOPE
VI annual appropriations and each award is capped at $1 million.
As I noted, this program is extremely important to rural communities
such as Moore Haven, Florida. Located on the banks of the
Caloosahatchee River in Glades County and one of the most rural areas
of Florida, Moore Haven is one of the oldest cities in South Florida.
This beautiful, old, sleepy Florida town is home to one doctor, Dr.
Geek, and one restaurant. It is one of the few places left in Florida
where the families have lived there for generations and everyone knows
their neighbor.
Unfortunately, it is also one of the poorest areas in the State. The
population of the city is approximately 1,900 people and the annual tax
revenue for all of Glades County is $6 million. The people of Moore
Haven have a desire to revitalize their historic downtown area, but
they lack the financial resources.
Guided by the vision of Tracy Whirls, the Executive Director of the
Glades County Economic Development Council, Moore Haven applied for a
HOPE VI Main Street grant last year. The city had hoped to use the
money to purchase three historic but dilapidated and vacant buildings,
with the intention of attracting businesses to the first floors and 12
affordable housing units on the upper levels. Plans for the first
floors included opening Moore Haven's only pharmacy and furniture
store.
I regret, Mr. Chairman, that Moore Haven was not successful in its
attempt to secure the grant. The good news is that they are game and
they are going to apply for it again this year. But I believe it is
imperative that we continue to give Moore Haven and small rural cities
like Moore Haven across this great Nation this opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would like to leave you with the words of
Larry Luckey, the Glades County property appraiser. ``If we are unable
to
[[Page H322]]
save these historic commercial buildings, the downtown historic
district will cease to exist. I am saddened at the thought that we may
well become a city with no history.''
I would ask for the support of my colleagues to preserve the HOPE VI
Main Street Grant program and the economy and history of small towns
across America, including Moore Haven. In addition, with the passage of
my amendment, we will ensure that rural communities continue to have
access to the affordable housing benefits provided by the HOPE VI
program.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for
yielding and thank the chairman and chairwoman for their passion and
leadership on this very important issue.
I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my good friend
and colleague from Florida, Mr. Mahoney. Mr. Chairman, I represent the
First District of North Carolina, which is the 15th poorest district in
our country. One of the towns in my district is called Henderson, North
Carolina. Last year, this town was one of three, one of three towns
across the country, to receive the HOPE VI Main Street grant that this
bill attempts to remove.
As we all know, HOPE VI Main Street grants seek to revitalize and
rejuvenate older downtown business districts while retaining the area's
traditional and historic character. The purpose of this program is to
provide assistance to smaller communities in the development of
affordable housing and the revitalization and reconfiguration of
obsolete commercial offices or buildings into sustainable and
affordable housing.
Mr. Chairman, towns like Henderson need these grants. We need these
grants to reinvigorate the communities and to spur outside commercial
investment. The point is, in closing, that HOPE VI Main Street grants
are needed for rural America.
I want to thank Mr. Mahoney for his leadership and passion and thank
him for bringing forth this amendment.
Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Sessions
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 110-509.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Sessions:
Strike line 18 on page 4 and all that follows through page
5, line 7.
Page 16, lines 20 through 22, strike ``, as amended by the
preceding provisions of this Act, is further'' and insert
``is''.
Page 16, line 24, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(4)''.
Page 17, line 9, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(5)''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 992, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment,
which strikes the prohibition of the demolition-only grants from the
HOPE VI, allowing HUD to retain its current authority to issue these
grants as conditions warrant. The original goal of HOPE VI was to
eliminate severely distressed public housing, and demolition-only
grants continue to play an important role in achieving this goal.
Currently, HUD is allowed to grant demolition-only grants only when
necessary and in instances that benefit the community. That means it
will be done in consultation with the community. As a result, HUD
provides these grants with great discretion. In fact, a demolition-only
grant has not been issued by HUD since 2003. Clearly, despite what the
opponents of this legislation may claim, HUD has not covertly abused
this power to tear down public housing units without reason and, I
would suggest to you, without being asked to participate.
However, sometimes public housing authorities have already put
together their own financing to redevelop housing, but they lack the
funds to tear down the existing distressed facility. In instances like
these, common sense dictates that a demolition-only grant under HOPE VI
would be appropriate, once again, working with the existing local
authority to make sure that what they want is accomplished.
As an added bonus, a cleared site also attracts more Federal and
private resources for revitalization efforts, meaning that when local
people ask for the support, then it can and would presumably be
granted, making the site better.
Another instance in which demolition-only grants make sense is when a
severely distressed public housing site is simply not a viable
candidate for redevelopment, either because it is only partially
occupied or completely vacant, once again, working directly with the
local housing authority. In these cases, other forms of housing
assistance, like section 8 vouchers, may be more beneficial to
community members simply than reconstructing a new building, in
particular on the same site, once again, at the discretion of local
housing authorities.
The question that every Member should be asking themselves before
they vote to eliminate this authority is, if there is no demand for
public housing in a certain area, as evidenced by its partially or
completely vacant status, and if the local housing authority is seeking
this help, then why on Earth would Congress mandate that HUD create an
unwanted supply? It makes no logical or fiscal sense to inefficiently
direct these taxpayer dollars where there is no reason or demand to
build. Prohibiting demolition-only grants almost guarantees this type
of waste would occur.
Additionally and finally, Mr. Chairman, let's not forget that the
ultimate goal of this program is to empower people to eventually get
off public housing and become self-determined, not simply to create
more public housing units. I would submit in the greater scheme of
things, it is also to have the Federal Government, through HUD, have
the flexibility to work carefully and closely with local housing
authorities to make sure that the right thing happens.
By preventing HUD from having the authority to remove dilapidated
housing without also rebuilding new units as Congress, we are certainly
failing to live up to the spirit of this philosophy. I encourage all of
my colleagues to support what I think is a commonsense amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, listening to the gentleman, one would think that the
demolition-only program is a harmless program in the Federal
Government. It is absolutely true that the Bush administration has
decided not to use the demolition-only authority that the statute gives
them since 2003, but there are reasons that they have decided not to
use the demolition-only authority.
Between 1996 and 2003, administrations made 285 demolition-only
grants to 127 public housing authorities that resulted in demolishing,
demolishing, 56,755 housing units, affordable housing units, in this
country.
{time} 1230
And the result was replacing less than half of those demolished
housing units because we have had a net loss over that period of 30,000
affordable housing units. So the administration in its good wisdom
decided that this was a program that was counterproductive, was
contrary in fact to the original objective of the HOPE VI program, and
discontinued the use of the authority that it had because it didn't
think it was a good program.
Now, the case has been made well by a number of our committee
members, Mr. Green from Texas in particular, that if there is anybody
in America who thinks that there is an excess of affordable housing,
they haven't read any statistics. If there is anybody in America who
believes there is an excess of affordable public housing, or
[[Page H323]]
public housing, period, in America, they haven't read the statistics.
So why the Federal Government would be giving money to local
communities solely to tear down public housing, affordable housing in
this country, given the dire shortage of housing in America and the
massive existence of homelessness in America, I can't tell you.
Now, HOPE VI allows local communities to demolish distressed public
housing; and one of the concerns that this bill addresses is that we
have tried to have a program to replace those houses so that people
won't be on the street. And that is exactly what HOPE VI does. That
part of it we need to retain. The demolition grants need to be
terminated. This bill terminates demolition-only grants, and we should
support the bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman. What he said
is let's take away the flexibility, notwithstanding that he has a
disagreement with what the Clinton and the first term of this President
has done.
I think what we are doing is taking a tool away from the toolbox
rather than flexibility. I believe it is local people who would ask for
this to be done, anyway, and then the Federal Government can
participate. But simply to say we have a house and we ought to keep it
no matter what, is, in my opinion, a bad argument. It is a bad argument
because keeping up something that is bad and needs repair and can't
take care of itself, we need to get rid of those. We need to rebuild.
That is what HOPE VI is all about. I hope you vote for my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WATT. I would just say the gentleman has made the exact point
that I tried to make in my argument, probably even more cogently than I
made it, that HOPE VI is about not only tearing down but rebuilding.
And there is plenty of discretion in local communities inside the HOPE
VI program to demolish public housing, as long as there is a plan to
put housing back in place. And we have retained that authority to put
housing back in place. The bill terminates the authority to just tear
down rather than having the obligation to rebuild.
I oppose the gentleman's amendment and encourage my colleagues to
vote against it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Lee
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in House Report 110-509.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Ms. Lee:
Page 40, line 4, strike the quotation marks and the second
period.
Page 40, after line 4, insert the following:
``(3) Public housing and section 8 eviction provisions.--In
the case of any public housing or housing assisted under
section 8, for which assistance is provided at any time
pursuant to a grant for a revitalization plan under this
section, the provisions of paragraph (6) of section 6(l) and
clause (iii) of section 8(d)(1)(B), respectively, shall
apply, except that any criminal or drug-related criminal
activity referred to in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)
of such paragraph or in the matter preceding subclause (I) of
such clause, respectively, engaged in by a member of a
tenant's household or any guest or other person under the
tenant's control, shall not be cause for termination of
tenancy of the tenant if--
``(A) the tenant is an elderly person (as such term is
defined in section 202(k) of the Housing Act of 1959 (12
U.S.C. 1701q)) or a person with disabilities (as such term is
defined in section 811(k) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013(k)), and
``(B) the tenant did not know and should not have known of
the activity or the tenant or member of household was the
victim of the criminal activity;''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 922, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank Chairman Barney Frank and
our chairwoman, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, for their hard work in
bringing to the floor this very critical legislation that reauthorizes
HOPE VI for the first time in 6 years.
As a former member of Congresswoman Waters' subcommittee, I saw
firsthand her leadership on this and so many issues to create and
expand affordable housing, to promote fair housing, to improve public
housing, and to support the creation of a National Housing Trust Fund,
among other initiatives. And so I know that, without her expertise and
the chairman's expertise and their commitment, we wouldn't be
considering today this truly important HOPE VI reauthorization bill. So
I want to thank Congresswoman Waters and Chairman Frank for their
leadership.
In revitalizing public housing, the HOPE VI program is able to offer
precisely that, and that is hope: hope for a better community, hope for
a better future. And I know that in my own district, for example, in
Oakland, California, the Mandela Gateway HOPE VI initiative is doing
just that.
Mr. Chairman, that is why I come to the floor today with a very
simple amendment that builds on this hope. My amendment would allow
Congress to stand up for the elderly and the disabled residents of
public housing who are unwitting victims of the misdeeds of their
relatives or guests. Specifically, this amendment would create a narrow
exemption from the eviction rule for those who are elderly or disabled
and who have committed no crime and have no knowledge of a crime being
committed or are the actual victims of a crime. This amendment will
give completely innocent tenants who are the most vulnerable a fighting
chance to stay in their homes.
It is sad that we have to stipulate this, but there is a history of
these unfair evictions. Let me just share one. In 2002, the Supreme
Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court and upheld the eviction order to
remove a 63-year-old woman, Ms. Pearlie Rucker, from her home. The
court did so despite the fact that she had committed no crime or had
any knowledge that the crime was happening. The Court did so based on
the criminal actions of her adult son and daughter, who committed their
crime several blocks away from their home. The Court found that,
because she had signed a lease that gave public housing authority the
right to no-fault evictions, her inability to control the actions of
other adults made her a threat to other tenants, and evicted her. This
is just plain wrong.
Unfortunately, Pearlie Rucker and her Supreme Court case has become
the basis for more forced evictions of people who have committed no
crime.
So this amendment certainly does not want to stop our hardworking
public housing authorities from providing low-income families with a
safe place to live; but innocent, elderly, and disabled tenants must
not have their housing rights stripped from them because of the actions
of other individuals away from their homes. So as such, it is
especially tragic that the elderly and the disabled are the most
vulnerable but are the least able to effectively control the actions of
their guests as fellow tenants should be held liable and punished for
the actions of other adults.
So I urge my colleagues to support this very simple amendment, and
again I want to thank Congresswoman Waters and Chairman Frank for their
leadership and their assistance with this.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
H.R. 3524, to reauthorize the HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization
Act of 2007, introduced by my distinguished colleague from California,
Representative Maxine Waters. This important legislation will
reauthorize and make changes to the HOPE VI public housing
revitalization program. I would like to thank Congresswoman Waters for
her consistent and dedicated work on this important issue, as well as
to commend Chairman Frank for his leadership in bringing this bill to
the floor today.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation reauthorizes, with important changes
incorporated into the
[[Page H324]]
Manager's Amendment, the HOPE VI public housing revitalization program.
Among other provisions, it provides for the retention of public housing
units, protects residents from disruptions resulting from the grant,
increases resident involvement, and improves the efficiency and
expediency of construction. The HOPE VI program, created in 1992, has
worked to improve the Nation's most dilapidated public housing units by
providing much needed resources to public housing agencies. These funds
have directly benefited countless Americans, particularly the elderly
and those with disabilities, partnering with local agencies to improve
conditions in public housing units and communities. I also support the
technical changes made by the Manager's Amendment, and I believe that
they will ensure that this legislation works to the maximum benefit of
all Americans.
Mr. Chairman, because I believe that this is strong and positive
legislation, and I would like to take this opportunity to address a
number of amendments offered by my distinguished colleagues. I would
like to express my support for the amendment introduced by my
colleague, Mr. Mahoney. This amendment will restore the set-aside funds
for the Main Street grant program. Mr. Chairman, this important program
provides resources for the revitalization of older, downtown business
districts, while retaining an area's historical character. The Main
Street grant program enables smaller communities to develop affordable
housing while still retaining their traditional identity and roots in
the past. I believe that this program is very important to countless
communities across the Nation, seeking to provide for their citizens
without losing sight of their shared history. I strongly urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting Mr. Mahoney's amendment to restore
funding for this program to this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I also strongly support the amendment introduced by my
colleague, Congresswoman Lee. This amendment will safeguard the rights
of elderly and disabled tenants living in HOPE VI housing.
Congresswoman Lee's amendment prohibits the eviction of elderly or
disabled tenants based on the criminal activities of others, provided
that the elderly or disabled tenant did not have knowledge of the
criminal activity. This important amendment improves the underlying
legislation by ensuring that disadvantaged members of our communities
are not further victimized for events beyond their control. It allows
Congress to stand up for the rights of those living in public housing,
preventing the eviction of elderly and disabled residents as the result
of the wrongdoing of family members.
However, I must oppose several amendments that I feel will harm the
integrity of this bill. I stand opposed to the amendment offered by my
colleague and fellow Texan Mr. Neugebauer, limiting the number of
dwelling units that housing agencies are required to replace. Under the
provisions of this amendment, only those units that are occupied as of
the date of the HOPE VI application must be replaced, rather than
requiring that all units torn down through the use of HOPE VI grants be
replaced on a one-to-one basis. I strongly oppose this change, because
I believe it weakens the one-for-one requirement in this legislation by
creating incentives for housing agencies to increase the number of
vacant units prior to seeking a HOPE VI grant, to decrease the overall
number of units that must be replaced. I encourage my colleagues to
join me in opposing this amendment, and in support of the underlying
language.
Mr. Chairman, I also must oppose the amendment offered by my
colleague Mr. Sessions, reinstating the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's authority to issue demolition-only grants. These grants,
which have not been issued since 2003, provide resources for the
demolition of properties and the relocation of families living there.
While this legislation eliminates demolition-only grants, unless the
demolition is done in connection with the replacement of dwelling
units, ensuring that the total amount of units does not diminish. The
adoption of this amendment would gut the strong replacement
requirements of the underlying legislation, and would further reduce
the already limited affordable housing stock in our nation.
I also oppose the amendment offered by Congressman King of Iowa. This
amendment would prohibit any amount authorized under this legislation
from being used to pay wages in compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act.
The adoption of this provision would in effect nullify the
applicability of Davis-Bacon to the HOPE VI program. Mr. Chairman, the
Davis-Bacon Wage Determinations are issued by the U.S. Department of
Labor, and they indicate the prevailing wage rates in a region, to be
paid on federally funded or assisted construction projects. These
standards ensure that workers on Federal projects are paid a fair wage,
and I believe it would be extremely detrimental to workers and to our
economy as a whole to exempt HOPE VI projects from these standards.
Mr. Chairman, I also stand in opposition to the amendment offered by
my colleague Congresswoman Capito, eliminating the requirements that
all grants must comply with minimum Green Building requirements. I
believe today's legislation, as introduced, makes important steps
forward toward responsible stewardship of our natural resources, and
Ms. Capito's proposal that compliance with Green Building requirements
be only one factor in the evaluation of grant applications would weaken
our effort to protect our global environment. The Capito amendment
would weaken the minimum standards for energy efficiency set forth in
this bill, and would permit the Department of Housing and Urban
Development to propose much weaker green development standards than are
currently required under this bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose the
Capito amendment, and to keep the language set forth by this
legislation.
I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this extremely
important legislation by protecting the integrity of the underlying
language, while making the technical corrections included in the
Manager's Amendment to ensure that the intent of the legislation can be
enacted.
Ms. LEE. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in House Report 110-509.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
Page 44, line 2, before the closing quotation marks insert
the following: ``None of the funds authorized to be
appropriated under this paragraph may used to pay wages in
compliance with subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40,
United States Code.''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 922, the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I offer to this
bill that is before us today is an amendment that strikes the
requirements for Davis-Bacon wage scale and prohibits any of the funds
from going to Davis-Bacon wage scale. And for the information of the
body, Davis-Bacon wage scale is a Federal wage scale that was imposed
over 75 years ago in this country; and I could go back into the history
of it, but the essence of Davis-Bacon wage scale is this: it imposes
union scale on all projects and any projects that are $2,000 or more,
which essentially are all projects.
I am a Member of this Congress that has worked and lived under Davis-
Bacon wage scale, and I have done that for well over 30 years. I have
done the homework, I have done the paperwork, I have put together the
spreadsheets, and I dealt with all the employee dynamics that were
involved there.
And I make the point, Mr. Chairman, that labor is a commodity like
corn or beans or gold or oil or gasoline, and the value of it needs to
be determined by the marketplace, not by the government. And for the
Federal Government to intervene in a relationship between two people,
and a contractual relationship in particular, at the cost of the
taxpayer that always favors going to a union scale and is not a
prevailing wage but it is in effect a union scale, this authorization
as written, if my amendment is not adopted, will cost the taxpayers an
additional $26 million.
And the inflation to construction projects runs between 8 percent and
35 percent. I use the number 20 percent. It is a low average. But I am
pledged here to protect the taxpayers, and I believe we need to protect
the relationship between the employer and the employee. And if unions
want to negotiate, I am all for their ability to do that, but I don't
think it should be imposed by statute, a statute that cannot keep up
with a change in the wage scale, a statute that is not effective, and
one that, according to a Department of Labor Inspector General study,
nearly 100 percent of the data cannot be relied upon. It is time to end
this practice. It is archaic, and it is time to strike this provision
out of here and eliminate Davis-Bacon wage scale.
[[Page H325]]
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Iowa very
cleverly uses the words ``union scale.'' This is not union scale; this
is prevailing wage scale. This is set by scientific surveys within a
community, based upon what is the prevailing wage in that community. It
moves from community to community. There is a reason for that.
Davis-Bacon has been one of the foremost agents that we have been
able to use in our entire economic structure to make sure that the
American worker has a livable wage that maintains the standards in that
community. The Davis-Bacon requirement has been on the books since
1931, and, if I might add, put on by a Republican, one of my opponents'
party members, President Hoover, and it has served us well.
Now, this amendment is certainly an amendment that is very timely.
Here we are in the throes of a recession, one of the most damaging
economic crises that this Nation has faced in the last quarter of a
century, and we have the gentleman from Iowa wanting to put on an
amendment that would diametrically affect the living wages of the
people who need the help the most.
Now, by preventing workers on HOPE VI projects from earning a living
wage is certainly not the right way to go. It is a hole in the head
bucket strategy, given that those very same workers in the absence of
Davis-Bacon protections would be unable to find housing themselves. A
part of the HOPE VI mission, Mr. Chairman, is to make construction of
units more efficient and to ensure that the HOPE VI housing units are
more environmentally friendly and cost effective. The Davis-Bacon
prevailing wages helps attract the necessary skilled workforce to build
housing in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. This is a bad
amendment.
I yield 2 minutes to Mr. George Miller to put his statement in the
Record at this point.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding,
and I very much appreciate his remarks against this amendment to
eliminate Davis-Bacon.
You cannot build good solid communities on the backs of poor people,
and you can't build good solid communities on the back of poor wages,
poor working conditions. This is about prevailing wages; it is not
about a union wage. They constantly year after year come and
mischaracterize this amendment; they mischaracterize the program. But
the fact of the matter is the majority in this House understands how
important this provision is to working people in this country and to
the communities in which these projects are being built. In fact, all
projects in this country where we invest taxpayer money, we should get
good projects, good wages and good working conditions for the people on
those projects.
I thank the gentleman for his statement.
I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. King of
Iowa.
Here we have a bill to reauthorize the HOPE VI program. That program
provides grants to localities for the construction, rehabilitation,
and, in some cases, demolition of public housing units. That work is
going to be done in some of the poorest neighborhoods in this country.
That work is going to be done in areas with some of the highest
unemployment in this country.
And what does the King amendment do? It eliminates prevailing wage
requirements for this work. It gives the money to contractors who would
be free to pay poverty wages and pocket the rest as profit. This
amendment worsens the cycle of poverty in the very areas that need the
most help.
But that's not all. This is taxpayer money. What do you get when you
give taxpayer money to contractors who pay poverty wages and treat
their workers poorly? You get shoddy work. And you have to spend more
taxpayer money to fix it later.
Let's summarize: The King amendment uses taxpayer money to worsen the
cycle of poverty in the poorest neighborhoods in this country. It uses
taxpayer money to buy shoddy work that just increases the costs later
on. It's difficult to tell who the amendment is trying to hurt the
most--the poor neighborhoods, the workers, or the taxpayers. This
Amendment is outrageous and should be roundly defeated by this House.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the amount of time
remaining for each party.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa has 3 minutes remaining;
the gentleman from Georgia has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, first of all I say to the gentleman
from California, that is offensive to me to say that my 28 years of
meeting payroll, my 1,400-some consecutive weeks of making payroll, of
providing health insurance and retirement benefits and year-around work
for employees and a career path for them is, to take his words, poor
wages and poor working conditions. My employees didn't think so, and
neither did the people that applied for a job that I didn't have room
to hire. That is not the way it works out there in the world. And who
in this Congress has some experience that can step forward and say
otherwise?
{time} 1245
I lived it. I lived it all of my working life. I know what happens
when you pay the excavator operator $28 an hour and the shovel operator
$12 an hour. You can't get the guy on the excavator to get down and
pick up the shovel to move a clod. You can't get him to pick up a
grease gun. It destroys the relationship on the workplace, and it
rearranges everybody's assignments. And so the guy running the finish
motor grader is rolling clods out there because he doesn't want to get
off the machine and pick up the grease gun, and your machines wear out.
And the boss has got to come to work at 3 o'clock in the morning to do
the maintenance. That's what happens when government gets in the way.
And it costs money. The inflation goes up; 8 percent, 35 percent. I
pick 20 percent. There is $26.4 million in this bill that is
unnecessary.
We have a shortage of labor. We are bringing in millions of people to
unskilled jobs here in the United States because we say this economy
cannot survive without that. And now we can't go without a union scale.
That is union scale, Mr. Scott. And you can't show me any statistical
evidence otherwise. It is the union operations that file the reports
because those that are not union get organized and they get picketed.
These people are smart. They are not foolish about this. And this is
a Jim Crow law. We went through this before. This was New York City. It
was a Federal building back in 1930 or 1931, and a contractor in New
York City decided that he wanted to keep out the low bid that came from
Alabama. The low bid came from Alabama because the labor could come
from Alabama. Those didn't happen to be white people. Those were
African Americans that came up and undercut the union wages in New York
and that brought about this ``Republican'' bill.
So I call it a Jim Crow bill. And I call it a racist bill, and it is
one that has been now shoehorned into this economy, into this bill,
into this legislation, in order to protect union wage scale.
I have pledged to come here to preserve and protect the free
enterprise side of this, the competition that is necessary for the
efficiency that is here. And I will also protect the right of
individuals to organize and negotiate for a good wage and good
benefits. That's also a right we should have in this country.
But this is not about prevailing wage. This is about union pay scale,
and it was a bill that was rooted in Jim Crow laws that has now been
transferred into union scale.
I urge the adoption of my amendment. Save $26.4 million and protect
the relationship between employers and employees and let me provide a
12-month, year-round job with benefits and retirement funds so that
people can plan their future, not hire them for 3 hours and let them go
for the next rest of the week.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, let it be noted that the
gentleman from Iowa, my good friend, is the one who brought up the race
card, not I. But I will be the one who quickly puts it back into the
middle of the deck, where it should stay and belong forever.
The fact of the matter is this: For 77 years, Mr. Chairman, this
country has had the prevailing wage. Not a union
[[Page H326]]
wage. The prevailing wage standards are set by scientific surveys of
actual wages paid in the local communities, and anyone awarded a
government contract pays at least those prevailing wages. It is not a
union scale. If you had union scale, that is it no matter where you go.
Prevailing wages are what is established based upon that local economy,
that local situation.
You talk about New York. When Hoover put this in in 1931, he didn't
put it in for New York. It was for the entire Nation, because we were
at the throes of the depression, at the beginning of the depression.
And now in a similar situation, while we are not in the beginning of
a depression, but certainly in a recession, you misguidedly, my good
friend, want to remove it. How ironic.
Mr. Chairman, this is a terrible amendment. It certainly is not the
right time to even think about in any fashion any measure that would
constrict the economic sector in this country rather than at a much
greater need when we need to expand it, and we need to stand and
protect the wage earner and working America on this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mrs. Capito
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in House Report 110-509.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 7 offered by Mrs. Capito:
Page 10, strike lines 13 through 16.
Page 14, strike ``non-mandatory'' in lines 5 and 6 and all
that follows through line 14, and insert the following:
``components of the green building rating system, standard,
or code determined by the Secretary pursuant to subsection
(l)(3); and''.
Strike line 16 on page 14 and all that follows through page
15, line 5, and insert the following: ``construction,
complies with the components of the green building rating
system, standard, or code determined by the Secretary
pursuant to subsection (l)(3).''.
Page 32, line 13, strike ``Requirement''.
Strike line 14 on page 32 and all that follows through page
34, line 9.
Page 34, line 10, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(1)''.
Page 34, line 13, strike ``proposed''.
Page 34, strike lines 15 through 18, and insert ``this
section is carried out in accordance with the terms included
in the approved plan pursuant to section (e)(2)(C)(xii)''.
Page 35, after line 5, insert the following:
``(2) Identification of green buildings rating system,
standard, or code.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this section, the
Secretary shall identify a rating system, standard, or code
for green buildings that the Secretary determines to be a
comprehensive and environmentally-sound approach to
development of green buildings.
``(B) Criteria.--In identifying the green building rating
system, standard, or code under this paragraph, the Secretary
shall take into consideration--
``(i) the impact of the cost of the enhanced building
quality rating systems, standards, or codes on the number of
affordable housing units;
``(ii) the ability and availability of assessors and
auditors to independently verify the criteria and measurement
of metrics at the scale necessary to implement this
subsection;
``(iii) the ability of the applicable developer of the
rating system, standard, or code to collect and reflect
public comment;
``(iv) the ability of the rating system, standard, or code
to be developed and revised through a consensus-based
process;
``(v) an evaluation of the robustness of the criteria for a
high-performance green building, which shall give credit for
promoting--
``(I) efficient and sustainable use of land, water, energy,
and other natural resources;
``(II) use of renewable energy sources;
``(III) improved indoor environmental quality through
enhanced indoor air quality, day lighting, pollutant source
control, and use of low-emission materials and building
system controls; and
``(IV) such other criteria as the Secretary determines to
be appropriate; and
``(vi) whether the rating system, standard, or code is
accredited by a national standards developing organization.
``(C) 5-year evaluation.--At least once every five years,
the Secretary shall conduct a study to evaluate and compare
available third-party green building rating systems,
standards, and codes, taking into account the criteria
specified in subparagraph (B).''.
Page 35, lines 9 through 11, strike ``national Green
Communities criteria checklist and LEED rating systems'' and
insert ``green building rating system, standard, or code''.
Page 35, line 13, strike ``checklist and systems'' and
insert ``system, standard, or code''.
Page 35, strike ``the national'' in line 20 and all that
follows through line 24, and insert the following: ``any
rating system, standard, or code that the Secretary has
determined to be appropriate pursuant to paragraph (3).''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 922, the
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from West Virginia.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to the HOPE VI
bill, and I would like to talk about first of all what this amendment
does not do because my fear is the argument on the other side is going
to distort what I really think the core of the discussion between my
amendment and those opposed should be.
This amendment in no way is an advocate for destroying or throwing
out the window environmental or green building standards. That is not
my goal or my intention with this amendment. It retains requirements
for green building standards, but it looks at how we build green in a
different way.
In the bill presently, there is a mandatory building standard that
has been a criteria that has been developed by a proprietary preference
for one organization. My amendment would simply move this out of a
mandated into the green communities specifically mandated criteria, and
move it into a more flexible situation where the Secretary would then
choose an appropriate green building standard, green building rating
system and code that would address environmental considerations, and
leaves flexibility for the Secretary, this Secretary and secretaries to
follow, to be able to determine that criteria.
We are going to be building these HOPE VI projects all across this
Nation, and I think it is important to note that there should be some
geographic considerations for green building standards across the
country.
We are also trying to find the best way to use our Federal dollars,
to maximize the number of Federal housing units, while still adhering
to good environmental standards.
I have listened a lot over the last 60 years to housing projects that
have been made, destroyed and rebuilt and why some of them haven't
lasted as long as they should. I think by putting this amendment
forward, I think I am taking into consideration that what we know today
to be a good green building standard and to be in the best interest of
an environment or a community or a quality of life in 3 years may be
outdated. The technology may not be in front of us now that says if you
look at your water this way or your air this way or your environmental
considerations for the landscaping, that there is going to be a better
way in 3 years.
In this bill, I think we are locking down a certain proprietarily
developed standard for green building. I think in selecting appropriate
green building criteria, this gives HUD the ability to choose a green
building system, a standard or code, in an open, consensus-based way.
That is why I put forward this amendment to give HUD the flexibility
not only for today but for the future.
Again, I want to reiterate what this amendment does not do. It does
not have a goal in mind of undercutting green building in an
environmentally stable way to create new HOPE VI projects. Also in this
amendment, it also requires the Secretary to conduct a review once
every 5 years to determine if the chosen system and standard or code is
still relevant, and I think that is appropriate in terms of innovation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first, there are two
points,
[[Page H327]]
and the gentlewoman tends to confuse the two. One is should there be
flexibility in the standard. Both versions have that. Our version says
the green communities or a standard promulgated by the Secretary, but
we say it has to be substantially equivalent in what it accomplishes.
Secondly and more important, the bill with the manager's amendment
says that a green component must be in any HOPE VI application. The
gentlewoman dilutes that. She says it will be one factor that can be
considered. But under her proposal, if you are very strong elsewhere,
they would not have to be very much in the green. So there is a real
difference there. We both say it is a good idea, but the bill says you
must include the green component. Her bill says you may include the
green component. You will get points if you do, but you might not. Both
have flexibility as to how you reach that.
Now I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Olver), the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on HUD and
Transportation.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I have high respect for the gentlewoman from
West Virginia, the ranking member of the subcommittee. In fact, I
occupy now the apartment that she used before upgrading.
But arguments in the builders' letter to Members promoting the
amendment are specious and deliberately misleading. First of all, all
references to LEED have been removed. Secondly, the letter greatly
exaggerates the cost of green community criteria which are so strongly
supported by the U.S. Council of Mayors and 40 other major
organizations.
A well-documented study of some 20 completed projects using these
criteria, completed projects using these criteria, showed an average of
only 2.4 percent increase in cost. We all need to remember that we
build housing for 50 to 100 years. The small increased construction
costs produce huge savings in lower monthly bills for energy for
tenants. The low-income tenants have all of the remaining 50 years to
accrue those savings after the payback comes within the first 5 to 7
years of the program.
I urge defeat of the amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman if I
left the apartment environmentally stable? I think I did.
I yield 1 minute to my colleague from the Committee on Financial
Services, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague and appreciate her
leadership.
Leave it to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to make an
inefficient program even more inefficient. By imposing these arbitrary
and uncredited green standards, it will drive up construction costs.
And in the end, that means we will have fewer units put out in this
housing program. And it also delays the spending of the $1.3 billion
HOPE VI surplus that we currently have.
I think it is a better use of the money to allow the Secretary to
establish standards that are appropriate for the region, appropriate
for the product being put out, and this gives the flexibility to do
that.
What I would say is that the Capito amendment still allows for green
standards, high, strong, green standards, but it does not impose
arbitrary standards. It allows for a collaborative effort for this to
go forward, and it strikes the right balance, not a one-size-fits-all
approach.
I urge adoption of her amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from West Virginia has 30
seconds remaining.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I would encourage a ``yes'' vote for my
amendment to give the flexibility, to give the innovation and
technology that we see every day in green and environmental building
standards to move forward so we don't lock down in this bill.
And when the gentleman just briefly says that the LEED standards were
removed from the commercial building, yes, they were removed. Why?
Because the union of carpenters that we heard about earlier were
raising Cain because they were going to have to get their wood from
imported wood to be able to meet these standards. That goes right to my
point. We need to be reasonable, but we also need to make sure that we
protect our environment and move forward with the best communities we
can.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, Mr. Chairman, yes, the carpenters
objected to the LEED standard. They did not object to the green
community standard. We thought the objection was reasonable and met it.
Secondly, again, the bill, without the gentlewoman's amendment, does
provide flexibility. We say, however, that when HUD does an alternative
proposal, it has to meet the minimum standard. That is the difference.
{time} 1300
We put in the minimum. The other difference is that her amendment
would allow some of the projects to go forward without green
components, depending on how they were otherwise rated and others would
not.
I yield for the remainder of our time to the head of our Subcommittee
on Energy Efficiency for the Financial Services Committee, my
colleague, Mr. Perlmutter of Colorado.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I thank the chairman. I thank the chairwoman for
bringing this bill. And Congresswoman Capito and I are part of this
energy efficiency task force. And I know that she has strong feelings
toward building in an energy-efficient, sustainable way. We have a big
difference of opinion as to property rights on this one. And it's
unusual, here in this instance, the Federal Government is the owner and
the financer of these projects. It has the right, as any property owner
does, as any owner does, to say how it wants its building built. And
that's what's done within this proposal, within this bill, and that is
to build these units in a green fashion. And so that, I think, is
appropriate. It is an appropriate exercise of ownership to say we want
these to be green. And the people of the United States of America in
this last election said we have to be more energy conscious. We have to
figure out a change to how we power this Nation and how we consume
energy, and this is where we get started as a Federal Government.
Now, one of the things we've talked about is the flexibility within
the bill as to the standards to be used. We use the words
``substantially equivalent.'' And if, in fact, HUD or EPA or the
Department of Energy is being recalcitrant, isn't following through on
developing substantially equivalent standards, you can bet that our
side of the aisle will work with you and the various Departments to
make sure they get off their fannies and they do develop some
substantially equivalent standards so that there is flexibility.
This is a good bill. This is a bad amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from West
Virginia will be postponed.
Announcement By the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 110-509 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Waters of California.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Neugebauer of Texas.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Sessions of Texas.
Amendment No. 6 by Mr. King of Iowa.
Amendment No. 7 by Mrs. Capito of West Virginia.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Waters
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California
[[Page H328]]
(Ms. Waters) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 388,
noes 20, not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 12]
AYES--388
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--20
Akin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Broun (GA)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Feeney
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Hensarling
Johnson, Sam
Lamborn
Linder
Mack
Miller (FL)
Pence
Royce
Stearns
Wilson (SC)
NOT VOTING--27
Baca
Baker
Berkley
Berry
Brown (SC)
Davis (IL)
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Faleomavaega
Forbes
Fossella
Gordon
Hobson
Hunter
Jefferson
Kingston
Lantos
Lewis (KY)
Miller, Gary
Paul
Schmidt
Sherman
Shimkus
Visclosky
Wu
{time} 1321
Messrs. LAMBORN, BARRETT of South Carolina, BARTLETT of Maryland and
MACK changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. BURGESS, CHABOT, Mrs. BONO, Mr. MACK and Mr. CONAWAY changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Neugebauer
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Neugebauer) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181,
noes 227, not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 13]
AYES--181
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Dent
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--227
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
[[Page H329]]
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Renzi
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--27
Baca
Baker
Berkley
Berry
Boehner
Brown (SC)
Davis (IL)
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Faleomavaega
Forbes
Fossella
Hobson
Hunter
Jefferson
Kingston
Lantos
Lewis (KY)
Miller, Gary
Paul
Schmidt
Sherman
Shimkus
Visclosky
Wu
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are
2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1336
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________