[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 26, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H1037-H1044]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3521, PUBLIC HOUSING ASSET
MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2007
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 974 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 974
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3521) to improve the Operating Fund for public
housing of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Financial Services. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall
be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Financial Services now printed in the bill. The committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising
under clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of
rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or
10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the
bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the
bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 3521
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated
by the Speaker.
Sec. 3. House Resolution 955 is laid upon the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from
Texas, Representative Sessions. All time yielded during consideration
of the rule is for debate only.
[[Page H1038]]
General Leave
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent
that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and
extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
{time} 1230
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 974 provides a structured rule for
consideration of H.R. 3521, the Public Housing Asset Management
Improvement Act of 2007. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate
controlled by the Committee on Financial Services. The rule makes in
order two amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying
this resolution. The rule also provides one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased that the rule makes in order an
amendment offered by my colleague from Florida, Representative Kendrick
Meek. His amendment ensures that in extreme cases where HUD is forced
to take over control of a housing authority, it must honor any and all
existing agreements between the local housing authority and tenant
associations. This amendment is needed in south Florida and throughout
the country, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, the skyrocketing number of foreclosures and the lack of
affordable housing are some of the greatest financial problems our
Nation faces today. In Broward County, the county in which I live in
Florida, foreclosure rates tripled in 2007 alone. It is obvious this
situation has grown beyond a crisis and extends into our entire
economy.
One group of service providers that is suffering significantly from
this economic crisis is our public housing authorities. For this reason
I support this rule and underlying legislation that will provide
flexibility to public housing authorities during our Nation's housing
crisis so that they are able to sufficiently meet the needs of our
constituents.
There are approximately 3,300 individual public housing authorities
in the United States serving 1.2 million households. Low- and middle-
income individuals and families making between 50 percent and 80
percent of the median income level in their community are eligible for
Federal assistance. Without this assistance, literally millions of
people would be homeless or in some cases even worse. Despite this
known reality, HUD recently issued a ruling which will result in
funding cuts for over 800 housing authorities throughout the country.
If the House does not act, then 26 percent of the housing authorities
in the United States will lose significant funding because of HUD's
decision. To make up for the anticipated funding shortfalls, the
underlying legislation gives housing authorities the flexibility to
transfer funds from their capital to operational accounts. This move
will ensure that housing authorities will not be forced to close down
existing public housing units because of HUD's short-sightedness.
Finally and importantly, the legislation also reaffirms the role that
tenants play in determining where they live and how those communities
are governed.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the problems addressed in this
legislation are not the only obstacles public housing authorities have
been forced to deal with over the last 7 years. As my colleagues know,
the current administration has a long record of failing to meet
America's low- and middle-income housing needs. For example, funding
shortfalls have become regular staples in the President's public
housing budgets, while the administration continues to neglect the more
than $18 billion backlog in deferred maintenance for public housing
units, allowing the deterioration of public housing units to the point
that many of them are completely uninhabitable. This is simply
unacceptable.
In my district some housing units are literally falling apart. Roofs
are leaking and in some instances even caving in. Appliances are broken
and decades, not years, old. Units are deteriorating, unattractive, and
lacking in some of the most basic amenities. Even more is that security
in many of the public housing communities has been consistently
disappearing. Residents in some public housing units in my
congressional district alone are literally afraid to leave their homes.
Yes, we are working to address these and other public housing issues.
But we will not be able to fully address these issues if the underlying
legislation does not pass.
Mr. Speaker, this housing bill was reported out favorably by the
Financial Services Committee, the whole committee, by voice vote. The
minority members of the committee did not offer any amendments during
markup, and not one Republican amendment was submitted to the Rules
Committee.
It is my sincere hope that the House will pass this rule and
underlying bill with that same overwhelming bipartisan support. I urge
my colleagues to support this rule and the Public Housing Asset
Management Improvement Act of 2007 as we work to improve public housing
throughout America.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida
for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This bill is real simple. It's real simple. For several years there
was a negotiation with HUD to look at the best practices across this
country from people who are in the housing industry to determine best
how to go about and manage assets of housing units. This bill is all
about taking away the best practices that exist for nongovernment
housing, the rest of the industry, because it will take money away from
people who don't engage in best practices. Of course it will take money
away from them. But what this is all about is to try to take a
negotiation that has happened for about 7 years from what the previous
Congresses have passed to say we think that public housing needs to
raise its standards to where we do have proper public housing, public
housing that works, public housing that can pass the smell test of
asset management.
Now my good friends, led by our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, want to say
forget the standards. Forget the standards of the industry. If they
have to live up to those standards of proper management, of best
practices, do you realize what that would mean to us? We couldn't pass
those audits; so we will lose our money. So this rule and this new
change that we are having here that's called the Public Housing Asset
Management Improvement Act of 2007 is all about trying to say forget
trying to do something that's better. Forget following standards that
have been established in the public sector. We don't want those to
apply. So now we're going to pass a rule and a law that says you don't
have to do that because if you did, you would lose money.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition. I rise in opposition not only to
the rule, which I believe is unnecessarily restrictive, but also to the
provisions in this bill and the underlying legislation that
unilaterally and at the last minute seeks to abuse the Congress's power
and to undo specific parts of a process that have previously been
carefully negotiated over years with the private sector best practices
and brokered over the last decade to make public housing more
accountable for its spending and more accountable to the public housing
units that we don't want to go into disrepair in the United States of
America.
In 1998 Congress passed the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility
Act, which among other things required a deliberate and negotiated
rule-making process to bring asset management at our Nation's public
housing administrations up to a reasonable standard. What we are here
to do today is to say we don't want that standard.
And you're right. The gentleman from Florida is right. Public housing
units that cannot meet the standards would lose money. That's why we
talk about waste, fraud, and abuse. People that do not use the money
that has been given them by this Congress, by the taxpayer to work in
the best interests, we thought, I think, as we vote to spend money, of
people who are in public housing, who, through some sometimes no fault
of their own, have to end
[[Page H1039]]
up in public housing and find out they are in a rat-infested, bad
housing project because asset management standards aren't followed.
Amazing.
By adopting widespread private sector common practices such as
project-based budgeting and accounting to ensure that costs are known,
managed, and maintained at a reasonable level, which is what the
current bill is about, which is what we're going to undo, Congress
wisely gave public housing administrations the tools they needed, and
just like private sector tools, to manage their own finances better,
bringing them into line with every other operator of subsidized housing
in this country and ensuring that spending moneys to support their
tenant and tenants remain the highest priority. We are going to do away
with that today. That's what we are going to do away with, and we call
that new and approved. I call that a sham and disrespectful of the
residents whom we are trying to help.
Today's legislation would overturn these longstanding negotiations
and turn back the clock for public housing administrations nationwide
by eliminating any restrictions on the amount of management fees they
could charge, promoting inefficiency, reducing the level of funding
available to tenants, and decreasing oversight and accountability. In
other words, making sure that these public housing agencies stay on the
watch list for waste, fraud, and abuse rather than using private sector
standards of best practices to make them better.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why this self-proclaimed most
honest, ethical, and open Congress in history would use this time today
to bring this legislation to the floor to make financial management of
mid-sized public housing administrations less transparent, less
responsive, and not even following the standards established by the
private sector and by unilaterally overturning a lengthy and fairly
negotiated rule-making process. But here we are.
In fact, if Speaker Pelosi really wanted to demonstrate her
commitment to honest, open, and ethical government, she could be using
this time instead to take up a resolution that I and over 150 of my
Republican colleagues have cosponsored, authored by my good friend,
Representative Jack Kingston from Georgia, which is a continuation of
House Republicans' long-term commitment to reform the earmark process.
Congressman Kingston's bill would create a Joint Committee on Earmark
Reform to conduct a full study of the earmark practices of the House,
the Senate, and executive branch. Upon completion of this study, the
joint committee would file a report of its findings and its
recommendations. Most importantly, until this report is filed, the
House would put in place an immediate moratorium on the consideration
of all earmarks.
By the way, that's the people's money. That's the people's money that
people really back home are worried about.
Instead, Mr. Speaker, this House, which recently tied the record as
the most closed Congress in history, with 49 closed rules so far in the
110th Congress, will consider this legislation that will impede the
successful transition to, and implementation of, asset management by
overturning a long negotiated process that is consistent with proper
standards of the private sector.
{time} 1245
I know that other bills like the bipartisan Senate legislation to
give our Nation's intelligence services tools that they need to protect
Americans against terrorists is also trying to be taken up by the
House. But, instead, this Democrat leadership has chosen to miss yet
another opportunity to provide Americans with greater security by
instead allowing the Protect America Act to expire. If there is any
question as to why the public holds Congress in such low regard, with
only about one in five Americans approving the job that this House is
doing, one need not look any further than the congressional calendar
this week, again, this week, and examine what both the Democrat
leadership and the House are doing and what we are neglecting to do.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to insert in the Record a
Statement of Administrative Policy explaining their strong opposition
to H.R. 3521's passage.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, February 12, 2008.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 3521--Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act
The Administration is strongly committed to the successful
transition to and implementation of asset management for
Public Housing Agencies (PHAs). Asset management will adopt
widespread private sector practices, including project-based
budgeting and accounting, to assure costs are known, managed,
and maintained at reasonable levels--ensuring public housing
tenants are the first priority. However, the Administration
is deeply concerned that H.R. 3521, as reported by the House
Financial Services Committee, would severely undermine PHAs'
long-awaited conversion to asset management and the adoption
of conventional business practices. For the reasons that
follow, the Administration strongly opposes House passage of
H.R. 3521.
H.R. 3521 would exempt 88 percent of PHAs, those which own
or operate fewer than 500 public housing units, from the
requirement to convert to asset management. The increase of
the threshold for exemption from asset management, from 250
to 500 public housing units, would directly contradict a
fundamental element of the Operating Fund negotiated
rulemaking process.
The bill also would eliminate any restriction or limitation
on the amount of management and related fees that a PHA could
charge through January 2011. This change would promote
program inefficiency, likely reduce funds available to
directly assist tenants, and erode effective program
oversight and accountability. Moreover, the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has already provided the
PHAs with the flexibility to phase-in management fees through
2011, provided they include reasonable documentation in their
Annual Plan.
PHAs would be allowed to spend as much as 20 percent of
their Capital Fund grant on central office costs related to
the operation of public housing. The extra 20 percent is
above and beyond the 10 percent of the Capital Fund grant
that the PHA earns as a management fee, and on top of the
normal management fees that a PHA earns for operating each
project. The Administration strongly opposes this provision
because it could lead to excessive Capital Fund diversions
and expenditures on administrative costs, and because HUD has
already allowed PHAs until 2011 to abide by the new
management fee guidelines, with supporting documentation.
Beyond that date, PHAs should abide by the new management fee
guidelines so that Capital Fund amounts are spent, to the
maximum extent possible, on capital works projects, not on
central overhead costs.
Under the bill, HUD is directed to ensure that PHAs
encourage the reasonable efforts of resident tenant
organizations to represent their members, and to issue
guidance encouraging resident participation in the
implementation of asset management. Although these provisions
are well-intended, HUD's regulations already encourage
resident and tenant participation, especially in the adoption
of Annual Plans. Moreover, the provisions in H.R. 3521 giving
wide latitude to a PHA's determination and use of management
fees are directly contrary to the interests of public housing
residents. Such provisions encourage PHAs to direct valuable
resources away from the direct operation of public housing
projects in favor of central overhead.
The Administration looks forward to working with the
Congress to ensure that the long-awaited conversion of PHAs
to asset management occurs smoothly and under the guidance of
conventional business practices. However, H.R. 3521 moves in
the wrong direction and would undermine these efforts.
I urge all my colleagues to vote against the previous question and
this rule so that today the House can actually take up legislation that
will move America in a positive direction.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is bad policy when you stand up and try and
pass a law that takes away more accountability, more opportunity for
sunlight, but most of all a standard that exists everywhere else. The
people we are really robbing, hurting, harming, and continuing to harm
are the people that live in public housing. We believe transparency is
important. But we believe in responsibility. We believe that people who
are in public housing are entitled to know that where they live that
someone is responsible, looking at the dollars wisely, and prepared
with the investments that had been made on their behalf. To be worried
about leaving where they are, I do understand. As the gentleman from
Florida has said, people are concerned that they even leave where they
are, concerned that something will happen. Well, that's right. That's
right.
And today, what this House wants to do is to lower the standards even
lower. I am disappointed. But I remain optimistic, because we have got
a vote in just a few minutes and we can change that pathway.
[[Page H1040]]
Mr. Speaker, the tragic events of September 11 taught us many
lessons, and one of the most basic lessons was that our Nation must
remain aggressive, nimble, proactive, and adaptable in our fight
against international terrorism. To accomplish this commonsense goal,
and a goal that I think we, as Members of Congress, when we raise our
hand to say we will support and defend our country, Congress must give
our intelligence agencies the tools that they need to stay one step
ahead of terrorists who wish to harm Americans.
Telecommunications technology has changed greatly since 1978 when
FISA was first written, and the modernization of foreign intelligence
surveillance to adapt to the realities of the 21st century should be a
critical national security priority. I am pleased that several of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle also agree.
On January 28, 21 members of the Blue Dog coalition sent a letter to
Speaker Pelosi in support of the Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation in
the United States Senate. The letter states, ``The Rockefeller-Bond
FISA legislation creates satisfactory language addressing all of these
issues which we fully support that would measure and should reach the
House floor without substantial change. We believe these components
will ensure a strong security apparatus that can thwart terrorism
across the globe and save American lives here in our country.''
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I will insert into the Record the letter
by the Blue Dogs to Speaker Pelosi.
Dear Madam Speaker: Legislation reforming the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is currently being
considered by the Senate. Following the Senate's passage of a
FISA bill, it will be necessary for the House to quickly
consider FISA legislation to get a bill to the President
before the Protect America Act expires in February.
It is our belief that such legislation should include the
following provisions: Require individualized warrants for
surveillance of U.S. citizens living or traveling abroad;
Clarify that no court order is required to conduct
surveillance of foreign-to-foreign communications that are
routed through the United States; Provide enhanced oversight
by Congress of surveillance laws and procedures; Compel
compliance by private sector partners; Review by FISA Court
of minimization procedures; Targeted immunity for carriers
that participated in anti-terrorism surveillance programs.
The Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation contains satisfactory
language addressing all these issues and we would fully
support that measure should it reach the House floor without
substantial change. We believe these components will ensure a
strong national security apparatus that can thwart terrorism
across the globe and save American lives here in our country.
It is also critical that we update the FISA laws in a
timely manner. To pass a long-term extension of the Protect
America Act, as some may suggest, would leave in place a
limited, stopgap measure that does not fully address critical
surveillance issues. We have it within our ability to replace
the expiring Protect America Act by passing strong,
bipartisan FISA modernization legislation that can be signed
into law and we should do so--the consequences of not passing
such a measure could place our national security at undue
risk.
Sincerely,
Leonard L. Boswell, Marion Berry, Mike Ross, Bud Cramer,
Heath Shuler, Allen Boyd, Dan Boren, Jim Matheson,
Lincoln Davis, Tim Holden, Dennis Moore, Christopher
Carney, Earl Pomeroy, Melissa L. Bean, John Barrow, Joe
Baca, John Tanner, Jim Cooper, Brad Ellsworth, Charlie
Melancon, Zack Space.
It is unfortunate that House Democrat leaders chose to allow the
Protect America Act to expire instead of bringing to the House floor
the bipartisan measure that passed the United States Senate by a vote
of 68-29. To make our country safer, Congress needs to act immediately.
Today, I will once again give all the Members of the House an
opportunity to vote on a bipartisan long-term modernization of FISA. I
will call on all my colleagues, including members of the Blue Dog
coalition that signed the letter to Speaker Pelosi, to join me in
defeating the previous question so that we can immediately move to
concur in the Senate amendment and send the bill to the President to be
signed into law quickly.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the
amendment and extraneous material inserted in the Record prior to the
vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question and in favor of a bipartisan permanent solution that closes
the terrorist loophole.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am hard put to move
hurriedly, so I will yield myself such time as I may consume. I am also
hard put, Mr. Speaker, to restrain myself and not get involved with the
ongoing discussion and the numerous ads that I saw during the previous
recess that were very much in error concerning the House of
Representatives' actions on the FISA legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I served for 7 years on the House Select Committee on
Intelligence. I find it hard to believe that my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle, or that anyone, would believe that the distinguished
Chair of the Intelligence Committee, Silvestre Reyes, the distinguished
Chair of the Judiciary Committee, John Conyers, the distinguished Chair
of the Homeland Security Committee, Bennie Thompson, their counterparts
in the United States Senate, all combined would want to put this Nation
in jeopardy in any way.
Enough of the fearmongering. Enough of making people think that
something is going to happen that is not going to happen. The simple
truth is that there will be legislation that will be legislation
fashioned by the House and by the United States Senate and not by the
United States Senate and not by this administration without those of us
who have actual concerns about the United States Constitution having
our say in that regard.
Civil liberties and civil rights are critical to America, and the
foundational aspects of our country allow full airing before
conclusions are made by people that have oriented the most secretive
administration that I know of in the history of this country.
I won't go much further on that score on the previous question, Mr.
Speaker. I return now to what we have heard about why we must pass this
rule and the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act, which we
are here about today. It is nice to have the nuances. It is nice to
have the process. It is nice to have the procedural opportunities that
the minority takes, and correctly they can bring up those matters which
are not on the agenda today. I can assure my friends on the other side
that the Speaker of the House of Representatives and those in this
body, including the Blue Dogs, will address FISA legislation, and it
will be appropriately undertaken to protect every American, every
American's civil liberties and civil rights, and more important, to
protect the Constitution of the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve an opportunity to improve
their lives. Transitional public housing opportunities have served this
purpose for decades, nurturing families and yielding such leaders as
some of us who serve in this Congress. Public housing authorities must
be empowered to effectively and flexibly manage their assets with
appropriate tenant oversight. My colleague on the other side mentioned
private sector tools. I am fascinated by the notion that the private
sector, which all of us respect, has been so careful with all of their
management. If their management has been so successful, why is it,
then, that there is a housing crisis in this Nation with reference to
foreclosure?
This morning, Mr. Speaker, and I take the liberty of doing this
because occasionally we come to the floor and talk about different
matters, but a distant cousin of mine in Fort Worth, Texas, called me.
Her name is Sharon Samuels. And Sharon shared her story with me about
her involvement with her mortgage company, Countrywide. She has been in
her home since 1993, she said, and in addition, thereto, had never
taken out any of her equity out of her home. She has three children,
all of them that she has managed to educate. And she was pursued by
Countrywide to enter into a mortgage set of circumstances that has now
led from her mortgage rising from $1,100 to $2,200 and foreclosure
proceedings going forward without any forbearance or opportunity for
her to do anything
[[Page H1041]]
other than lose all of her assets that she had developed during the
years since 1993. I mention that because that is the private sector
that has put an individual in a home, in a position of being in need of
this kind of stuff that we are talking about here today. Hardworking
Americans families should not suffer as a result of HUD's failed
policies.
I applaud my colleagues for joining together in this effort that will
benefit the low-income families, the elderly and the disabled Americans
who live in public housing. This bill has been endorsed by all the
groups that represent not only public housing administrators and
agencies but also tenant advocacy groups. The bill is supported by the
Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, the Public Housing
Authorities Directors Association, the National Association of Housing
and Development Officials, National Housing Law Project, and the
National Training and Information Center.
But guess who doesn't support it? Some people on the other side of
the aisle who had an opportunity in the Financial Services Committee to
offer amendments if they so choose, and they chose not to do so, and
yet they will come here today and say that we are lacking on our side
of the aisle in providing the necessary standards and providing the
necessary tools for people to live in public housing.
Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago, I ran for the United States Congress, and
among the things that I said was I would try to improve public housing
in my congressional district and throughout this Nation. I don't feel
that I have succeeded. Twelve of those years have been spent under
Republic administrations that were controlled by Republicans, 12 years
in the House, 8 years just now, ending soon, happily, in November so
that these $18 billion backlogs and so that housing won't collapse and
fall down around people.
This is the same administration that didn't answer in New Orleans.
But what have we done? In the limited time that we are here, and I
continue to hear criticism about what we have not done. What we have
done in the House, we passed the section 8 voucher reform program that
increases the number of families, veterans, and seniors that are able
to afford safe homes by adding 20,000 new vouchers. We did expand the
Homeownership Act of 2007 that allows the population of borrowers to
have access to the Federal Housing Administration. In this House we
have passed the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007,
which creates a fund to use and build more affordable housing for low-
income families and families who have lost their homes to foreclosure.
{time} 1300
They keep saying that the agenda isn't good. We passed the Housing
Finance Reform Act and expanded the size of loans that can be issued by
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. We passed the Mortgage Reform and Anti-
Predatory Lending Act that increases transparency and heightens
standards to keep brokers from practicing predatory lending. Save us
from these people who argue that asset management is a landmark program
change now several years in the making? You bet it is.
What I don't understand is why is it poor people are always the ones
that have to take it right on the chin every time this Nation gets
itself in a crisis. The National Training and Information Center
sponsored by La Raza; the Center for Community Change; the Chicago
Rehab Network; Cleveland Housing Tenant Association; Fall River Housing
Joint Tenants Council; Legal Aid Justice Center; Miami Workers Center,
all sorts of organizations. I will include all of the letters of all of
the organizations I have for the Record.
National Training
and Information Center,
Chicago, IL, February 7, 2008.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker, The undersigned 150 democratic
grassroots resident organizing groups and allies would like
to convey our strong support for protecting the rights of
public housing residents to organize, as delineated in H.R.
3521, the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of
2007. As the transition to a system of asset management is
one of the most significant shifts facing the administration
of public housing in many years, it is more important than
ever that public housing residents are involved in the
decisionmaking processes at the local and national levels.
In April of 2007, the National Training & Information
Center (NTIC) submitted a letter to Congress endorsed by
local, statewide, and national organizations in protest of
recent attempts to undermine the efforts of resident and
community organizations to participate in the decisions
around public housing that impact their communities and their
lives. One of those attempts was a notice by HUD on March 1,
2007 to streamline the process to waive 24 CFR 964, which
outlines the rights of residents to organize, for PHAs
transitioning to asset management. Section 4 of H.R. 3521 is
critical in order to ensure that the congressionally
sanctioned rights to organize for public housing residents
are protected.
The NTIC network is of the perspective that residents must
be central to the discourse around policies that impact
them--both at the local and national level. Section 4 of this
bill will ensure that the voices of public housing residents
are not lost in the implementation of asset management. Over
the past year, NTIC has brought together public housing
residents and allies from 38 cities to identify the most
pressing areas for reform of public housing policy. The right
to organize and meaningful resident participation are among
the highest priorities for residents across the country. In
order to make asset management work for everyone, it is
critical that residents are involved in decisions around its
implementation.
The undersigned 150 local, statewide, and national
organizations would like to convey our support for the
principles outlined in Section 4 of H.R. 3521. Namely, we
feel strongly that residents should have a right to organize
in public housing and should be meaningfully and
substantively involved in the decisions that impact their
lives--both at the local and national level. Specifically, it
is critical that the rights bestowed by 24 CFR 964 not be
undermined by the transition to asset management. We hope
that we can rely on your support for these principles.
Access Living--Chicago, IL.
Annapolis Tenant Task Force--Boston, MA.
Beacon Glen Resident Association--Cincinnati, OH.
Bethel New Life--Chicago, IL.
Bethune Village Resident Council--Daytona Beach, FL.
Border Fair Housing & Economic Justice Center--El Paso,
Texas
Bowen Homes Resident Association--Atlanta, GA.
Cabrini Green Rowhouse Council--Chicago, IL.
California Coalition for Rural Housing--California State
Center for Community Change--National
Central Advisory Council--Chicago, IL.
Central Illinois Organizing Project--Central Illinois
Chicago Coalition for the Homeless--Chicago, IL.
Chicago Rehab Network--Chicago, IL.
Cleveland Housing Resident Association--Cleveland, TN.
Clinton Springs Resident Association--Cincinnati, OH.
Coalition to Protect Public Housing--Chicago, IL.
Communities United for Action--Cincinnati, OH.
Community Voices Heard--New York, NY.
Connecticut Legal Services--Connecticut State
Consumer Action--National
Crossroads Urban Center--Salt Lake City, UT.
Detroit United Organizing for Power--Detroit, MI.
District of Columbia Grassroots Empowerment Project--
Washington, DC.
Empower DC--Washington, DC.
Empowering & Strengthening Ohio's People--Cleveland, OH.
Erie Tenant Council--Erie, PA.
Everywhere & Now Public Housing Residents Organizing
Nationally Together--National
Fall River Housing Joint Tenants Council Inc.--Fall River,
MA.
Families United for Racial and Economic Equality--New York,
NY
Faneuil Tenant Task Force--Boston, MA.
Findlater Gardens Resident Association--Cincinnati, OH.
Fuerza Laboral/Power of Workers--Providence, RI.
Good Old Lower East Side--New York, NY.
Grass Roots Organizing--Mexico, MO.
Guste Homes Resident Management Corporation--New Orleans,
LA
Hartford Organizing for Power & Equality--Hartford, CT.
Homeline--Minnesota State
Horizon Hills Resident Association--Cincinnati, OH.
Housing Action Illinois--Illinois State
Housing Choices Coalition--Santa Cruz, CA.
Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco--San Francisco,
CA.
Housing Trust Fund Project--National
Illinois Network of Centers for Independent Living--
Illinois State
Imagine Supported Living--Santa Cruz, CA.
Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement--Iowa State
Jane Addams Senior Caucus--Chicago, IL.
Janie Poe Residents Council--Sarasota, FL.
Jurisdiction-Wide Resident Advisory Board--Cincinnati, OH.
[[Page H1042]]
Just Cause Oakland--Oakland, CA.
Kalamazoo Homeless Action Network--Kalamazoo, MI.
Lafayette Resident Advisory Board--Lafayette, WI.
Lake City House Council--Seattle, WA.
Lake County Center for Independent Living--Lake County, IL.
Lake Park East Tenant Association--Chicago, IL.
Lakeview Action Coalition--Chicago, IL.
La Playa Resident Council--San Diego, CA.
La Raza Centro Legal--San Francisco, CA.
Lawyers' Committee for Better Housing--Chicago, IL.
Lebanon Tenants Association--Lebanon, PA.
Le Claire Court Community Development Corporation--Chicago,
IL.
Legacy of Equality, Leadership and Organizing--Seattle, WA.
Legal Aid Justice Center--Charlottesville, VA.
Legal Aid Justice Center--Richmond, VA.
Legal Assistance Resource Center of Connecticut--
Connecticut State.
Liberty Apartments Resident Association--Cincinnati, OH.
Livermore Tenants and Neighbors--Livermore, CA.
Logan Square Neighborhood Association--Chicago, IL.
Los Angeles Coalition to End Hunger and Homelessness--Los
Angeles, CA.
Lowden Homes Local Advisory Council--Chicago, IL.
Low Income Families Fighting Together--Miami, FL.
Madera Action Coalition--Madera, CA.
Maine Association of Interdependent Neighborhoods--Maine
State.
Maine Equal Justice Partners--Maine State
Mar Vista Gardens Resident Advisory Committee--Los Angeles,
CA.
Massachusetts Alliance of HUD Tenants--Massachusetts State
Massachusetts Union of Public Housing Tenants--
Massachusetts State.
Mennonite Central Committee--National.
Metro Atlanta Task Force on Housing & Homelessness--
Atlanta, GA.
Metropolitan Tenants Organization--Chicago, IL.
Miami Workers Center--Miami, FL.
Millvale Resident Association--Cincinnati, OH.
Mineral Manor Resident Council--Reno, NV.
Minneapolis High Rise Council--Minneapolis, MN.
Mission Terrace Residents Association--San Jose, CA.
Mississippi Coalition for Citizens with Disabilities--
Mississippi State.
Mobilizing and Organizing for Victory and Empowerment--
Minneapolis, MN.
Mothers on the Move--New York, NY.
Myra Birch Manor Resident Council--Reno, NV.
National Alliance of HUD Tenants--National.
National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People--Richmond, VA.
National Association of Consumer Advocates--National.
National Association of Resident Management Corporations--
National.
National Economic and Social Rights Initiative--National.
National People's Action--National.
National Training & Information Center--National.
New Direction for Change--Chicago, IL.
New Orleans Women's Health Clinic--New Orleans, LA.
New Orleans Women's Health & Justice Initiative--New
Orleans, LA.
Neill Resident Association--St. Paul, MN.
North Valley Community Cooperative--North Valley, NM.
North West Bronx Community & Clergy Coalition--New York,
NY.
North West Side Housing Center--Chicago, IL.
New York City AIDS Housing Network--New York, NY.
New York City Public Housing Residents Alliance--New York,
NY.
Oahu Housing Task Force--Oahu, HI.
Old Colony Tenant Task Force--Boston, MA.
Organization of the North East--Chicago, IL.
Organizing Neighborhood Equity DC--Washington, D.C.
Peabody-Englewood Tenant Task Force--Boston, MA.
People for Community Recovery--Chicago, IL.
People Organized for Westside Renewal--Los Angeles, CA.
People Organized to Win Employment Rights--San Francisco,
CA.
People Organizing to Demand Environmental & Economic
Rights--San Francisco, CA.
People United to Secure Housing--Kalamazoo, MI.
Pittsburg Community Reinvestment Corporation--Pittsburg,
PA.
Portland Tenants Union--Portland, ME.
Praxis Project--National.
Public Housing Association of Residents--Charlottesville,
VA.
Public Housing Residents of the Lower East Side--New York,
NY.
Public Housing Residents of Trumbull Park Homes--Chicago,
IL.
Resident Owned Business, Inc.--Gary, IN.
Residents of Salem United--Salem, OH.
Rhode Island HUD Tenant Project--Rhode Island State
Richland Resident Council--Richland County, MT.
Rogers Park Section 8 Tenants Council--Chicago, IL.
Rose Garden Apartment Association of Residents--Las Vegas,
NV.
Safe Streets/Strong Communities--New Orleans, LA.
Senior Action Council--Phoenix, AZ.
Seventy St. Botolph Street Tenant Taskforce--Boston, MA.
Single Mothers on the Move--Hartford, CT.
South Austin Coalition Community Council--Chicago, IL.
Southside Together Organizing for Power--Chicago, IL.
Sunflower Community Action--Kansas State
Survivors Village--New Orleans, LA.
Sutter View Resident Council--Cincinnati, OH.
Syracuse United Neighbors--Syracuse, NY.
Tenants Union of Washington State--Washington State
Tenants Rallying In Unity to Maintain Public Housing--New
York, NY.
Transadvocacy Coalition--Hartford, CT.
Tri-City Resident Council--Southeastern Kentucky
Union de Vecinos--Los Angeles, CA.
United Community Housing Coalition--Hartland, VT.
United Residents for Housing Rights--Jackson, OH.
Upland Residents Association--Upland, CA.
West Broadway Tenant Task Force--Boston, MA.
Whittier Street Tenant Task Force--Boston, MA.
Winton Terrace Resident Association--Cincinnati, OH.
____
National Association of Housing
and Redevelopment Officials,
Washington DC, February 1, 2008.
Hon. Albio Sires,
House of Representatives,
Washington DC.
Dear Representative Sires: On behalf of the more than
22,000 members of the National Association of Housing and
Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO), I am pleased to join with
our industry colleagues the Public Housing Authority
Directors Association (PHADA) and the Council of Large Public
Housing Agencies (CLPHA) in formally expressing our strong
support for House passage of H.R. 3521, ``The Public Housing
Asset Management and Improvement Act.''
We believe H.R. 3521 contains provisions that will help
ensure a responsible and practicable transition to asset
management. The bill would establish a reasoned process for
defining and determining management and related fees and a
suitable transition period for implementing them. The bill
also addresses concerns expressed by NAHRO and our industry
colleagues with regard to the practicality and cost-
effectiveness of asset management for local housing agencies
with fewer than 500 public housing units. We believe H.R.
3521 correctly makes the transition to asset management
optional for agencies with portfolios of this size. The
legislation also confirms current law enabling the use of
capital fund dollars used for operating purposes as permitted
for central office costs.
Finally the legislation reaffirms current statute with
respect to the right of residents to provide input and
participate in the development of local agency policies.
NAHRO maintains that the provisions contained in H.R. 3521
are necessary and would, upon final enactment, resolve some
of the more difficult and problematic concerns expressed by
our members with regard to the transition to asset management
as defined by recent HUD policies and directives. NAHRO has
and will continue to work with the Department to ensure a
smooth transition to public housing asset management, but
strongly feels that congressional action providing clarity
and certainty with respect to the items noted above is
necessary and warranted.
We thank you for your leadership on this issue and stand
ready to be of further assistance as appropriate.
Respectfully,
Saul N. Ramirez, Jr.
____
Council of Large
Public Housing Authorities,
Washington, DC, January 30, 2008.
Hon. Barney Frank,
Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Frank: On behalf of the Council of Large
Public Housing Authorities (CLPHA), I am writing in support
of H.R. 3521, the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement
Act of 2007, and to urge passage of this sensible legislation
by the U.S. House of Representatives.
Asset management is landmark program change now several
years in the making. CLPHA members have made the commitment
to transition to a flexible asset management system, a shift
involving sweeping management and accounting changes.
Provisions in the legislation of most concern to our
members are those relating to management and related fees and
the prohibition on restriction of fungibility of capital fund
amounts. The legislation allows:
Housing agencies and HUD to have an expanded formal process
by April 1, 2009, the basis of which is already established
in the Public Housing Operating Fund Final Rule,
[[Page H1043]]
enabling the negotiation of appropriate property management,
bookkeeping and asset management fees. Once arrived upon,
execution of those fees would commence in 2011; and
Housing agencies to use a portion of their Capital Fund
grant towards eligible operating expenses. This provision was
first established by Congress in 1996 and reinforced in the
2008 HUD appropriations bill in recognition of housing
agencies' need for funding flexibility--a need which has only
increased over time.
We thank you for your leadership and support of public
housing and look forward to working with you on passage of
this legislation.
Sincerely,
Sunia Zaterman,
Executive Director.
____
National Housing Law Project,
Oakland, CA, February 25, 2008.
Hon. Albio Sires,
Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, Longworth
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Sires: We are writing to convey our
support for H.R. 3521, the Public Housing Asset Management
Improvement Act. The focus of our support is based upon the
resident participation provision.
The National Housing Law Project (NHLP) is a 40 year old
national housing law and advocacy center whose mission is to
advance housing justice for poor people. NHLP's goals are to
increase and preserve the supply of decent affordable
housing, improve housing conditions for very low-income
persons and households, expand and enforce low-income
tenants' and homeowners' rights and increase housing
opportunities for racial and ethnic minorities. In pursuit of
these goals, NHLP provides support through written materials,
training, legislative and administrative advocacy,
litigation, and technical assistance on housing issues
affecting very low income families. NHLP works with numerous
legal services organizations around the country.
HUD and public housing agencies (PHAs) are currently
engaged in the very substantial effort of transitioning to
and implementing asset management. This effort is having a
substantial impact at the local level. PHAs that never
applied for operating subsidies are now doing so. Other PHAs
are experiencing cuts in operating subsidies due to asset
management and the new funding formula. All PHAs are making
new staffing and program determinations because of the
requirements of project-based management and project-based
budgets, all of which affect current residents.
Simultaneously most PHAs are experiencing a cut in operating
subsidies because of the low level of funding for such
subsidies. In this environment of change, it is vital that
the Secretary of HUD issue guidance supporting resident
participation in the implementation of asset management and
the development of local policies that arise from that
effort.
It is also critical that Congress recognize the rights of
public housing residents to organized and represent their
members. Previously, Congress recognize these rights for
residents of other federally assisted but privately owned
housing. See 12 U.S.C. Sec. 1715z-1b(4). It is important that
Congress also recognize the same rights for the approximately
1.2 million public housing families.
Sincerely,
Catherine M. Bishop,
Staff attorney.
____
Public Housing Authorities
Directors Association,
Washington, DC, January 31, 2008.
Hon. Albio Sires,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Sires: On behalf of its members. PHADA
thanks you for your support of the public housing program and
for your efforts to ensure the workability of public housing
asset management. Asset management is a landmark program
change now several years in the making. During this time,
PHADA has advocated for a cost-effective and practicable
transition to asset management; a transition that would also
enable smaller housing agencies (for whom the transition to
individual project based management is neither cost effective
nor practical) to be exempt from the process altogether.
The Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 2008
(H.R. 3521) would authorize in statute recommendations long
advocated for and broadly supported by PHADA's membership;
recommendations that would accomplish this overall objective.
PHADA is pleased to express its strong support for the
passage of this important and necessary legislation.
H.R. 3521 will make possible the following:
1. In 2009, housing agencies and HUD will have an expanded
formal process, the basis of which is already established in
the Public Housing Operating Fund Final Rule, enabling the
negotiation of appropriate property management, bookkeeping
and asset management fees. Further, once arrived upon,
execution of those fees would commence in 2011.
2. Small housing authorities that own and manage between
250 to 500 public housing units, 12 percent of all agencies,
will gain regulatory relief in that the transition to asset
management will be optional for them.
3. The legislation upholds current statute by which public
housing residents may organize and participate in the
development of policies at public housing agencies.
PHADA believes these simple provisions will mitigate
implementation impediments broadly identified by its members
and would provide flexibility critical to housing agencies'
survival in a time of dwindling resources.
PHADA views these items as being essential to the fair,
efficient and effective implementation of asset management as
currently defined by HUD. It welcomes the opportunity to
continue to work with the Department and Members of Congress
to ensure that the administration of asset management is
handled in a responsible manner going forward. Thank you for
the opportunity to express these views.
Respectfully,
Timothy G. Kaiser,
Executive Director.
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time, but
not before saying that I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question
and the rule and remind people that this passed the Financial Services
Committee by voice vote.
Oh, no, we are not here about FISA. We are not here about earmarks.
We are here about public housing for poor people in a country that has
dumped on them over and over and over again. We will get to earmarks.
We will get to FISA.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 974
Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 4. ``That upon adoption of this resolution, before
consideration of any order of business other than one motion
that the House adjourn, the bill (H.R. 3773) to amend the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a
procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign
intelligence, and for other purposes, with Senate amendment
thereto, shall be considered to have been taken from the
Speaker's table. A motion that the House concur in the Senate
amendment shall be considered as pending in the House without
intervention of any point of order. The Senate amendment and
the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the
Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
motion to final adoption without intervening motion.''
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled
[[Page H1044]]
``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the
previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported
from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to
amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2)
Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the motion for the
previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee
on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition
to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or
motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________