Jose Medina Veterans Affairs Police Training Act of 2007

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. I thank my colleague from Florida for the generous words about the procedure. There were some differences between us on the parties on this, but in general, this represents a consensus.

And, Mr. Speaker, I want to give credit where credit is due. This is a result of a process that was begun by our former colleague from Ohio, Mr. Ney.

He convened when he was Chair of the Housing Subcommittee a set of roundtable discussions with participation from HUD, from tenant groups, from landlord groups that participate, and from others. And much of what is in this bill came out of the sessions that he and his then ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), now the Chair of the subcommittee, did.

So as is always the case in a parliamentary body, we will, as is appropriate, focus to some extent on some differences. And there are several amendments that will present sharp differences, but people ought to keep in mind that it is in the context of a great deal of agreement.

In addition to the agreements already there, I have had conversations with several of the Republican Members, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller); the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell); the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert). We have some agreements about what we should be doing, how this should be interpreted, what we should be doing going further, and I look forward in the general debate to colloquies with all of them so that I think we can further solidify the agreements that we have going forward.

Now, as to the substance of the bill, the section 8 program is a very important one. Many of us believe that the problem has been not with the section 8 program but that it stood alone, that it was not accompanied by programs that would build housing. And in other pieces of legislation that have come out of the Financial Services Committee, some of which have come to the floor, some of which are about to come to the floor, we are going to try to add a supply side, if I may borrow the phrase, to the demand side.

We have a program here which increases the demand for housing by putting money in the hands of people who otherwise would not be able to afford decent housing. But if all you do is that and you don't also help build housing, you can have an adverse impact on price. So we hope to be able to balance it, but that is not the fault of this program.

What this bill does is to make it more flexible. It has much in there that HUD agrees with; although, again, I don't claim that everybody agrees with everything. An indication of the extent to which this simply improves the program, I will include in the Record several letters on this subject. One letter comes from those who are the landlords, who rent.

And, by the way, we are not automatically doing them a favor. In a tight rental market, as we have in many parts of this country, it is a good thing for the public purpose that landlords are willing to participate. Many of these landlords, they don't have to be in the section 8 program, so we try to reach out to them. And here is a letter endorsing the bill from the Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, the Institute of Real Estate Management, the National Affordable Housing Management Association, the National Apartment Association, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Leased Housing Association, and the National Multi Housing Council.

We also have strong support from those in the public sector at the local level who administer this: the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials and the Council of Large Public Housing Agencies. And then we have also a letter from a large coalition of advocacy groups, of religious groups that are in the business of building the housing. There is a very broad degree of support for this bill.

I understand there are a couple of points of difference, and I realize, too, there are some points of difference that couldn't have been presented. I would have liked them to be. But I think that the three amendments that are in order on the Republican side do present some of the most important differences.

I should note, by the way, that while three amendments reflect the disagreement that many in the minority have with the bill, two of the other amendments are really bipartisan. The manager's amendment is an amendment in which the gentleman from Illinois and the gentlewoman from California collaborated.

So the manager's amendment, one of the six amendments, it is designated as the Waters amendment, but it is very bipartisan. And the second one that is bipartisan is an amendment that deals with situations that threaten the ability of people to stay in affordable housing in the district my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and our colleague from the committee from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

So we have two amendments which are completely bipartisan. We have those three. And then the one that the gentlewoman from New York will offer on domestic violence, which I don't think is terribly controversial.

So I understand that we haven't resolved all the differences. I do think that, and let me put it this way, of all the housing bills that have come to the floor from this committee, this is the

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

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

July 12, 2007.

Dear Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus: We are

writing to lend our strong support for H.R. 1851, the Section

8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007 (SEVRA), which is scheduled to

be debated in the House today. We represent a diverse array

of constituencies--ranging from housing providers to tenants

to apartment owners to membership organizations to religious

leaders--who all agree that this is a very strong piece of

legislation.

Simply put, SEVRA is a good government bill. It stabilizes

the voucher program with a permanent funding policy, while

simplifying the rules about how to calculate tenant rents and

streamlining the housing inspection process. As a result, the

voucher program will run more efficiently, tenants will be

rewarded when they increase their work effort, and there will

be less unnecessary paperwork for all parties involved--

housing authorities, tenants, and property owners.

The voucher program is our nation's leading source of

housing assistance for low-income people. It serves nearly

two million families with children, elderly people, and

people with disabilities. Making sure that it operates as

effectively as possible is in their interest as well as in

our national interest.

We give this bill our strong endorsement so it can continue

through the legislative process and be enacted this year.

Sincerely,

AARP, American Association of Homes and Services for the

Aging (AAHSA), American Network of Community Options

and Resources, Association of Jewish Family &

Children's Agencies (AJFCA), The Arc of the United

States, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP),

Coalition on Human Needs (CRN), Consortium for Citizens

with Disabilities Housing Task Force, Corporation for

Supportive Housing (CSH), Easter Seals.

Enterprise Community Partners, Housing Assistance Council

(HAC), Institute of Real Estate Management, Jewish

Council for Public Affairs, Lawyers Committee for Civil

Rights Under Law, Local Initiatives Support Corporation

(LISC), Lutheran Services in America, National Advocacy

Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, National

Affordable Housing Management Association (NAHMA).

National AIDS Housing Coalition, National Alliance of HUD

Tenants, National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI),

National Alliance to End Homelessness, National

Apartment Association, National Association of Home

Builders, National Association of Housing Co-ops,

National Association of Realtors, National Association

of State Mental Health Program Directors, National

Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community

Development.

National Council of State Housing Agencies (NCSHA),

National Housing Conference, National Housing Trust,

National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, National

Leased Housing Association, National Low Income Housing

Coalition, National Multi Housing Council, National

People's Action (NPA), National Training and

Information Center (NTIC), NETWORK, a National Catholic

Social Justice Lobby.

Poverty & Race Research Action Council (PRRAC),

Presbyterian Church (USA) Washington Office, Public

Housing Authorities Directors Association (PHADA),

Public Justice Center, The United Methodist Church--

General Board of Church and Society, Travelers Aid

International, United Cerebral Palsy, United Jewish

Communities (UJC).

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, the Housing Choice Voucher Program, more commonly known as section 8, helps provide housing assistance to around 2 million low- income families and individuals each year. The program began in 1974, primarily as a project-based rental assistance program. By the next decade, it had become evident that the project-based model was too costly and concentrated families in high poverty areas, thereby making it harder to break the cycle of poverty.

In 1983, Congress stopped providing project-based section 8 contracts and created vouchers as a replacement. The voucher program allows families with a voucher to find and lease a unit in the private sector, instead of being limited to certain section 8 housing complexes. Recipients pay a portion of their rent, based on their income, while the voucher covers the remaining portion of the rent.

In 1998, the program consumed 42 percent of HUD's annual budget. By 2005, it had grown to over 62 percent of HUD's budget. If the growth in the program is not addressed and reformed, we could face a situation where deserving low-income families would be unable to receive any assistance.

The underlying bill makes a number of improvements to the section 8 program to reform and simplify regulations of local public housing agencies, while preserving essential tenant protection. H.R. 1851 aims to simplify rent calculation and inspection requirements for section 8 vouchers, project-based assistance and public housing, and to promote self sufficiency on the part of assisted families through work incentives and home ownership opportunities.

This bill can make good changes to the section 8 voucher program. The funding allocation formula included in the bill codifies the formula change made in the continuing resolution,

February 2007. It uses the public housing agencies' vouchers costs and utilization rates from the last 12 months, instead of the 2004 numbers for a quarter of that year.

Under current law, HUD is required to recapture the amount in excess of each public housing agency's reserve limits, funds that are left over after the renewal of vouchers. If the PHA does not use all the money that the government has authorized, then the government reallocates those funds to another PHA the following year.

The community that I'm honored to represent has lost millions of dollars to other public housing agencies under the change in law made by this Congress. The current funding formula neglects the coverage costs of litigation issues or weather damage, of living facilities which were financed by the excess funds.

The manager's amendment, Mr. Speaker, which will be debated later today, will allow public housing agencies to retain, to keep 12.5 percent of their reserve funds during the first year of the formula change. After the transition, PHAs will remain with 5 percent of their reserve funds in a given year. The manager's amendment aims to somewhat compensate for losses faced by public housing agencies such as those in my community.

I commend the Financial Services Committee, its chairman and ranking member, and all of its members, for working in a bipartisan manner to make improvements to the section 8 program. I look forward to the committee's continued efforts to improve the program, and to addressing the concerns I have mentioned with the funding formula.

Mr. Speaker, unlike the bipartisan nature with which and under which the Financial Services Committee has worked this bill, the majority in the Rules Committee failed to live up to that same standard. There were 23 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee for consideration. The majority on the Rules Committee made only six amendments in order. Yes, half of them, a whopping three, were Republican amendments, but there were 12 Republican amendments that had been submitted.

During consideration of this rule, the minority made attempts to make several other Republican amendments in order, but the majority blocked each amendment by party line vote. That's quite a contrast to how the Financial Services Committee has worked.

My colleague on the Rules Committee from Texas, Mr. Sessions, also offered an amendment to the rule that would have made this an open rule, Mr. Speaker. The majority on the Rules Committee blocked our efforts for an open rule. This is contrary to how the majority promised to run the House of Representatives, and it is most unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes

to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia did offer this amendment in committee, and it was rejected. What he wanted was to be able to present it before the full House. And he was pointing out that the promise that had been made by the majority was that there would be more openness during the consideration of legislation such as this. And that's what the gentleman from Georgia was trying to point out.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished leader on this issue and many others, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the distinguished colleagues who have participated in this debate. Obviously this is a very, very important piece of legislation that is being brought forth today.

We have concerns with regard to the process, not in the creation of the legislation itself but in the way in which it has been brought forth to the floor and the rule that brings the legislation to the floor and establishes the terms of debate for the legislation.

I think it has been a good debate. I think we've been able to express certainly our concern with the process, as well as in the case of most Members that I have certainly heard on this debate, the evident awareness of the importance of the underlying legislation and the issue dealt with by the underlying legislation.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Florida for his leadership on this issue and so many others.

I rise opposed to this rule for process and policy reasons.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the new majority promised us and they promised the American people a fair and open process. But again, the majority has failed to live up to its promises, and now that it is out from under the spotlight of election-year promises, we see that they are few and far between.

Before last year's election, Speaker Pelosi said, ``Because the debate has been limited and Americans' voices silenced by this restrictive rule, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.''

And, Mr. Speaker, I agree. So what's changed? Is it political expediency or is it a broken promise?

In December following last year's election, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, told the media that ``We intend to have a Rules Committee . . . that gives opposition voices and alternative proposals the ability to be heard and considered on the floor of the House.''

Mr. Speaker, where is the commitment to that promise, with only six of 23 amendments made in order? What has changed, Mr. Speaker? Is it political expediency or is it a broken promise?

Mr. Speaker, the Rules chairman, Ms. Slaughter, has said, ``If we want to foster democracy in this body, we should take the time and the thoughtfulness to debate all major legislation under an open rule, not just appropriations bills . . . an open process should be the norm, not the exception.''

Mr. Speaker, what's changed? Is it political expediency or is it a broken promise?

Rules Committee member Mr. McGovern has said, ``I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if you want to show some bipartisanship, if you want to promote a process that has some integrity, then this should be an open rule. All Members should have an opportunity to come here and offer amendments to this bill to improve the quality of the deliberations on this House floor. They should be able to come and offer amendments to clean up this place.''

Well, Mr. Speaker, what's changed? Is it political expediency or is it a broken promise?

Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel has said, ``Let's have an up- and-down vote. Don't be scared. Do not hide behind some little rule. Come on out here. Put it out on the table and let's have a vote . . . So don't hide behind the rule. If this is what you want to do, let's have an up-and-down vote. You can put your votes right up there . . . and then the American people can see what it is all about.''

So what has changed, Mr. Speaker? Is it political expediency or is it a broken promise?

Mr. Speaker, I am also very curious as to what has happened with the distinguished chairman and my friend on the Financial Services Committee. In the past, not only has he been a vocal advocate for open rules to the legislation that he has brought to the floor, but the new majority has spared him no effort to applaud him for doing so. In fact, Chairman Frank was such a firm believer in allowing debate, allowing consideration of amendments, that Representative Welch of Vermont felt so moved to say, ``All of us applaud the work of Chairman Frank for recommending an open rule to this bill . . . ''

But, Mr. Speaker, that was on a previous bill. So I would ask what's changed. What is the chairman afraid of? Because it certainly appears that he has lost his passion for an open and a fair process.

In a letter dated July 9, 2007, to the Chair of the House Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, Chairman Frank urged that the Rules Committee ``provide a structured amendment process.'' So what's changed, Mr. Speaker? What's changed?

The Rules Committee Web site lists 23 amendments submitted for consideration, yet only six were made in order. So what's so scary about the other 17? What's so scary?

Mr. Speaker, I submitted three amendments not made in order by this draconian and restrictive rule. My first amendment would have applied pay-as-you-go spending rules to this bill that CBO has said will have a net cost of $2.4 billion over the next 5 years. Remember Democrats' promise to use PAYGO rules for everything; instead, they're picking and choosing when to do so. At home we call that breaking a rule and breaking a promise.

The second amendment, Mr. Speaker, is clearly a substantive one. It would have prevented, as the gentlelady from Florida said, prevented illegal immigrants from receiving assistance under the section 8 program by providing all adults to provide secure identification before receiving assistance. It's the kind of commonsense amendment that the Financial Services Committee has applied before. It has also been accepted by the full House on other legislation.

The third amendment would have helped clarify a new requirement for public housing authorities. This bill provides that the public housing authorities have to report rental payments as alternative data to the credit bureaus. Rental payment information is clearly different than other forms of commerce and may need to be treated differently in order to ensure accuracy of credit reporting.

These were three thoughtful and substantive amendments which deserved the consideration of all 435 Members of the House, but they were denied that opportunity, Mr. Speaker, by this restrictive and draconian rule.

Mr. Speaker, back home in my district, rules aren't rules if you only follow them when you want to. Democrats promised to use a fair and open process for everything. Instead, they're picking and choosing. And when you pick and choose to do so, it's called breaking a rule and breaking a promise.

So I urge the new majority to rededicate itself to its campaign promises of a fair and open process. We should allow this Chamber to work its will on all legislation. An open process shouldn't just be something that's just talked about solely on the campaign trail. What amendment was so scary that it ought not be included in this discussion?

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule so that we may have a complete, open and fair debate. The American people deserve and expect no less.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 534 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, my colleague, Mr. Diaz-Balart. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 534.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 534 provides for consideration of H.R. 1851, the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services.

The rule makes in order the Financial Services substitute as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.

The rule also makes in order six amendments printed in the Rules Committee report. Each amendment is debatable for 10 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, many American families are facing a critical housing crunch. The cost of an apartment or home is rising out of sight. But there is good news from a majority of this Congress that keeps fighting for a new direction for America. The reform provided today through H.R. 1851, under this rule, which has bipartisan support, will help families in need of affordable housing.

I would like to thank Housing and Community Development Subcommittee Chair Maxine Waters, and Financial Services Chair Barney Frank for their leadership in housing and commitment to our Nation's families.

Our actions today are needed because, over the past few years, the Bush administration has caused great frustration when it comes to housing. The White House eliminated housing opportunities for approximately 150,000 families under a major section 8 funding formula change.

The White House refused to release about $1.4 billion in unused voucher funds for affordable housing. So, Mr. Speaker, instead of homes for many families in need, thousands of families have been placed on waiting lists.

In my hometown of Tampa, Florida, during a 1-week open enrollment session, more than 10,000 seniors, families and veterans indicated a need for housing. But, instead of receiving housing, they were placed on a waiting list. The waiting list takes up to 4 years, and is so long that the Tampa Housing Authority is unable to help others that need it.

Even with this reform bill, Mr. Speaker, the final fair market value rents are in need of adjustment. It's ridiculous and completely unreasonable for HUD to believe that a 3-bedroom apartment in the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater area is available for just over $1,000. The truth is, those affordable homes and apartments are few and far between, and this must be fixed.

Nevertheless, H.R. 1851 takes positive steps to ensure that more families are able to find a clean, safe, stable and affordable place to live. Through the major reforms contained in the bill, we are going to increase the number of families that can receive housing over the next 5 years.

We will simplify the rules and procedures used to establish rents for section 8 and provide housing. We're going to reduce the bureaucracy and red tape for our public housing authorities so they can concentrate on assisting the elderly, the physically challenged and other struggling families.

We're going to provide incentives for families to become more self- sufficient by obtaining employment, increasing their incomes, pursuing higher education and planning for retirement. These families will also be able to use section 8 vouchers for a down payment on the American dream of home ownership. We will continue to fight to keep families safe and protected in an affordable, clean and safe home.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to support this bill. And the Congress should be eager to pass this reform.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished chair of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Frank.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio, Mrs. Tubbs Jones.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrats are going to keep their promise to the American people by fighting for affordable housing.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to thank, on behalf of the folks I represent back home in Florida and all Americans, express my thanks to Chairwoman Maxine Waters and to Chairman Barney Frank for standing up and fighting for America's families and affordable housing.

I urge my colleagues to continue the American tradition of promoting the American Dream and turning that dream into a reality for decent, safe, clean and affordable housing, particularly for the elderly, the disabled, veterans in our community, domestic violence victims and all families.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to provide some perspective on the effect H.R. 1851 will have on discretionary spending and on the appropriations process. If we're not careful, we will be opening the door to a huge new spending at uncontrollable rates.

The section 8 voucher program has proved widely successful and popular. But there is also wide consensus that we must provide reform to the program, which I agree with. We all want the program to be effective, provide assistance to those truly in need and be fiscally responsible for American taxpayers.

First, I want to point out, there are positive reforms in H.R. 1851. The bill increases the number of PHAs allowed

to participate in the Moving to Work Program. This program, renamed in the bill as the Housing Innovation Program, gives PHAs flexibility to design and test methods that achieve efficiency, reduce costs and promote self-sufficiency.

The bill also enhances HUD's Family Self-Sufficiency Act program which works to give low-income families the skills and experience needed to become economically independent.

I do, however, have major concerns with the provisions in H.R. 1851 that abandons the budget-based funding methodology. Going back to the flawed unit-based methodology like this bill proposes is a recipe for budgetary disaster.

A unit-based system lacks incentives for PHAs to maximize assistance to needy families within a fixed budget. A unit-based formula system that includes costs incurred as well as units put under lease simply tells PHAs to lease at whatever cost they want, even if it is more than the market rate and the market price for the same unit. We already know what that can mean. We have experience with a unit-based approach and have seen what it means.

In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the Appropriations Committee shifted to a unit-based funding to spur leasing, and the result was skyrocketing per unit cost and total funding requirements that increased by 40 percent, from $9 billion to $13 billion, in 2 years. In 2005, a budget-based system was reinstituted.

We, as appropriators, can simply not afford to see a similar increase in the future. Today, in total, the section 8 program has grown to consume 60 percent of HUD's budget. Going back to a unit-based program will only increase that percentage. Simply put, as the Housing Voucher Program takes up more of HUD's budget, there will be less we will have for other housing programs.

As the former chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee for HUD, and as the current chairman will attest, the growing Housing Voucher Program is forcing Congress to choose between section 8 vouchers and other important HUD priorities. That includes programs that support first-time ownership, home ownership, homeless facilities, and care and housing for the elderly and the disabled.

And then there is this Community Development Block Grant, which I believe virtually every Member supports because they hear from their mayor, the city council and from the county administrators on how the program makes their community better. If we're not careful, these programs will face deep cuts in future years just to accommodate the section 8 increases.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a work in progress. It has been improved in committee, and I believe amendments before us today can improve it further. I am hopeful that as the bill works its way through into the legislative process, we can improve it even more.