Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 2007

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 974 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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.

General Leave

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.

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. 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

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.

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,

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to be here debating this bill to help public housing authorities across

this Nation. Let me start by thanking Chairman Barney Frank for his support on this bill and his leadership in the committee.

Let me start by explaining why I introduced this bill. Shortly after I was sworn in, I received a letter from the Jersey City Housing Authority in my district. They told me they had laid off 34 employees because of asset management. When I looked into this, I learned that Jersey City was not unique. Over 800 public housing authorities had their operating budgets cut because of the way asset management was implemented by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. At the same time, the Department limited the amount of flexibility given to public housing authorities to make ends meet.

I knew something had to be done. With the support of Chairman Frank, Chairwoman Waters, and others, I introduced H.R. 3521, the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 2007. You will note that the title indicates that the bill improves asset management. It does not, and I repeat, it does not put an end to asset management. That is because I feel strongly that the goals of the asset management are worthwhile. By making public housing authorities run more efficiently, asset management has the potential to improve the lives of all those who live in public housing in this country.

My bill simply makes four improvements to the asset management rule. First, it requires renewed negotiations over the management fee. A little background in this is probably helpful. In 1998, Congress passed the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998, which called on the Department to replace the old funding system with a new, more efficient system. In 2004, a negotiated rulemaking committee gathered to decide how to implement this new system known as asset management. One key piece was the management fee, and Congress required that the fee be reasonable. The negotiators never discussed the management fee, and industry groups have argued that it was set arbitrarily by the Department in its final rule because it lacked input from the negotiated rulemaking committee. My bill requires new negotiations to establish a reasonable fee and allows public housing authorities to revert back to their old funding mechanism until final implementation of asset management on January 1, 2011.

Second, my bill reaffirms current law by allowing public housing authorities to transfer funds between their operating fund and their capital fund. This provision prevents the Department from prohibiting such transfers. This flexibility is vital to agencies, particularly since the public housing program is underfunded. Housing authorities know best where they need funding, not Washington. There is wide agreement on this provision. In fact, this provision was included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008. That provision, however, is only valid for 1 year. My bill would make the change permanent.

Third, my bill increases the exemption threshold from small to medium-sized public housing authorities. The Department recognized that small authorities with fewer than 250 units of housing would not benefit from the efficiencies of asset management. The final rule exempts public housing authorities with fewer than 250 units of housing from implementing asset management. My bill simply raises this threshold to 500 units. Again, there is little disagreement on raising the threshold. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 raised the exemption threshold to 400. My bill goes a little further to 500 units. The impact of this change will only affect 441 public housing authorities, some of whom may not opt out of asset management because they think it makes good sense. Even with this change, over two-thirds of all public housing units still will be covered by asset management rules.

Finally, my bill restates current law in terms of tenant participation. It simply says that tenants should be allowed to participate in the decisions affecting their homes. It prohibits the Department from altering tenant participation rights, and it encourages public housing authorities to include tenants in discussion about asset management that directly affects their home.

Let me end by talking about who supports this bill. We have received letters of support from the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association, the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, and the National Training and Information Center.

I submit these letters for the Record.

National Training

and Information Center,

Chicago, IL, February 7, 2008.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, 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

decision-making 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.

Thank you for listening to the voices of the people!

Signed,

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, TX.

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,

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Chairman, just in closing I would like to say that there is oversight, and the 20 percent that we are talking about is just increasing 10 percent because already they have the ability to move 10 percent. With all of the costs, all of the increases and the underfunding of these housing authorities, I think this is reasonable.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, I offer an amendment.

This manager's amendment covers two different aspects of the bill. The first part addresses compliance with section 2 of the bill. Section 2 grants agencies that lost funding because of asset management to walk out of the funding agreement. The bill allows them to set their own reasonable management fee until a new negotiated rulemaking takes place. However, the Department recently announced that any agency compliant with this provision of the bill will be deemed as noncompliant with the Asset Management Final Rule. The manager's amendment makes it clear that these agencies are compliant.

The second part of the manager's amendment restates current law that undocumented immigrants are ineligible for financial assistance under section 214 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1980. These changes are technical and should be adopted.

Chairman Frank and I urge a ``yes'' vote on these amendments.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I would like to thank Mr. Meek for offering this amendment.

This amendment clarifies that the Department cannot prevent public housing authorities in receivership from benefiting from this bill.

Chairman Frank and I fully support this amendment, and we urge adoption.

Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Madam Speaker, I make a point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill. The bill H.R. 3773 has nothing to do with the asset management bill under consideration.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman is not speaking on the point of order.

Madam Speaker, I insist on my point of order.

Madam Speaker, I move to table the appeal.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the Republican whip.

On Monday, the House will not be in session. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday the House will meet at 10 a.m.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A list of those bills will be announced by close of business this week.

We will consider H.R. 3521, the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 2007. In addition, we will consider legislation regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as we expect the Senate to act on the bill the House sent, hopefully, early next week.

I appreciate the gentleman's confidence that the Senate is going to send us a bill, short-term, medium-term or long-term duration. We have been waiting for that for some time, obviously.

It is my understanding the Senate is going to address this bill on Tuesday. Now, if they send it to us on Tuesday, we will see what they have in the bill. There obviously will be little, if any,

time for a conference. My expectation is there will be a difference between the House bill which passed here 2\1/2\ months ago and the Senate bill.

As I said on the floor, when we passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill on November 15 or 16, I said at that time I was hopeful that we would pass it, that the Senate would pass it, and that we could have a conference in which the very important specifics of the bill might be discussed and differences ironed out. That has not yet occurred, unfortunately.

In addition, as I told my friend last week, we had still not gotten access to the documents that we had asked to see to indicate what, in fact, immunity was being asked for. Those documents, my friend and I had an opportunity to discuss that, I don't know whether he had any role in that, but they will now be made available as of today. As a matter of fact, I intend to take the opportunity tomorrow, much of the morning, perhaps even into the afternoon, to review those documents. Some few Members have had that opportunity already, but very few. So we have been very late and compressed in the schedule of dealing fully with what is the thorniest issue on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill, and that is the granting of immunity.

I will tell my friend that, as I said, when we extended it for 15 days, when we had an agreement to do that, to give the Senate time to act, I was hopeful they could act within that time. The problem we now find ourselves in, if they act on Tuesday, and they send the bill to us on Wednesday or late Tuesday night, I don't know how long their consideration is going to take.

As you know, there is substantial controversy, as is evident by the difficulty they have had in passing it, so I don't know exactly how quickly they will be able to pass that bill. But as I have said on numerous occasions, we believe, I believe, there are serious issues on which there are obviously honest differences of opinion.

I agree with my friend, we would like to resolve this. We would like to have it resolved so that we don't visit it monthly or every 3 months or every 6 months. We believe, as I said before, that the current bill, the current FISA law, if it is reverted to, will provide for all of the intelligence surveillance that is needed by the administration.

It would require, of course, getting FISA approval, the court's approval, which was, of course, contemplated in 1978 when it was adopted so that with or without an extension or new legislation, we believe the administration can pursue, as all of us want to, there is nobody on this floor who doesn't want to make sure that we facilitate the protection of the American public and America through the interception of communications which may be by terrorists planning to attack us.

But having said that, I am sure my friend appreciates, as I have said all along, this is a serious issue, a difficult issue for many. I think we are all agreeing on the enforcement and interception part. It is the immunity issue that gives many concerns, and they want to look at that carefully, and I think that's fair to do. Whether or not we will be able to do that next week, frankly, I tell my friend, I am not sure.

I agree with my friend, and that is correct, and I think that is why all of us want to facilitate and ensure that the work of the NSA and others can go forward. I don't know whether the gentleman had an opportunity to either see or hear this; but I just wanted to bring to your attention, because we do share that concern, that in testimony this morning before the Intelligence Committee, the Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, whom we work with, said that all current surveillance activity under the Protect America Act would continue even after the law expires.

He went on to say, after being asked about the backlog of surveillance, because, as you recall when we were back in August or July of last year, there was a concern about the backlog and therefore it couldn't get approval as quickly as might be needed. Director McConnell informed the House Intelligence Committee that the backlog that existed has been eliminated, saying we are caught up on everything at this point in time.

I think we can have a confidence level. I agree with you, we want to get this done as quickly as possible. Because I am concerned that we not have a gap, we are trying to assure ourselves, and believe we are assured that there will not be a down time for our intelligence service should we not be able to reach agreement either with the Senate or with ourselves in the time frame of next Friday.

I am hopeful that we can do that, and we will work toward that end.

I appreciate your bringing to my attention, and we discussed the second sentence, which you just read regarding the more restrictive. When he refers to the more restrictive, he simply refers to the fact that they would have to go to the FISA Court for approval of such intercept as they want, and that would be within the, of course, authority within 72 hours to act and then get approval after the fact, which is why I indicated that Admiral McConnell had said that the backlog had been eliminated.

You recall previous testimony, or comments, that one of the officials who dealt with these in the administration indicated that, and the court could, frankly, within minutes, give approval

in many situations, and now that the backlog has been eliminated, it is correct, it would be more restrictive, it would have to go to the court, but that, of course, is what was contemplated in 1978. We do not believe that that would in any substantial way slow down the process and, therefore, not in any way put us at risk.

Having said all of that, we still agree with you that if we can get this done in a timely fashion that would be good.

I want to tell my friend, though, very candidly, I think there is some sentiment that if we don't get it done that that is going to put this side of the aisle that wants to look at this bill, after the Senate passes it back to us, with whatever provisions they include in it, carefully, we understand that we are going to be portrayed as somehow undermining the security of America. We think that argument is bogus, but we do think it may well be made.

I do want to make the point that I don't think we have much difference on that issue because we agree that technology has changed. As we all know, there is a switch here in the United States now that the 1978 law did not anticipate. Frankly, I don't think there is a great deal of contention. I think in a bipartisan fashion we believe that needs to be addressed. We addressed it in our bill and the Senate addressed it in their bill. Frankly, I don't think that is one of the items in contention.

In fact, I would suggest to my friend we could deal with the immunity issue, which looks back not at present capacity nor future capacity, and resolve that issue in a separate bill if that was the concern about going forward. I think that could be done relatively quickly.

My only point to the gentleman is I agree with you, technology has changed. I think there is bipartisan agreement we need to address that and facilitate the foreign-to-foreign intercept with a blanket approval simply related to process, and I think we could do that relatively easily because I don't think that is particularly contentious between us.

There is a possibility we will be considering an energy bill much like some of the provisions that were included in H.R. 6 in the 6 for '06 package that we passed in the first 100 hours, and other portions of which were included in the energy bill that did not make it through.

I don't have specifics on that at this point in time, but that is being discussed and that is a possibility and he is correct.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Obviously Friday is on the schedule. I expect we will be here on Friday. We have some other legislation on the suspension calendar. I don't know how extensive that will be.

Clearly we have been talking about FISA. FISA authorization ends on Friday. Again, we have a difference in perception of the consequences of that; but nevertheless, we have scheduled Friday so we are available depending on what the Senate does and depending on whether we can get to some agreement to ensure our presence to act on that, if possible.

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

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.

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

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. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I am indeed honored to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 3521, the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 2007; and I want to thank Mr. Sires and Chairman Frank for their dedication and commitment to resolving this, at times, perplexing and confusing process known as asset management to which our public housing agencies have been struggling to adapt for several years now. This struggle has been made all the worse by the Department of Housing and Urban Development's overly prescriptive guidance on some issues, lack of guidance on other issues, and contradictory or insufficient guidance on everything in between.

I think we can all agree that public housing agencies can be better at managing our public housing resources and that asset management has the potential to improve how public housing is managed nationwide. However, in examining the issues behind the implementation of asset management, it has become clear that HUD's one-size-fits-all approach simply won't work. In addition, the Department's willful disregard of existing statute as a part of the implementation is eroding the trust of housing agencies' residents and some Members of this Congress.

In light of the Department's actions and the need to proceed with asset management, my friend from New Jersey who introduced this bill, H.R. 3521, maintains and respects the negotiated rulemaking agreed to by all parties, housing agencies, their industry representatives and HUD and still requires housing agencies to convert to asset management by 2011.

However, the bill settles three outstanding issues that have slowed the implementation of asset management: number one, the amount of management fees; number two, the ability of housing agencies to use a portion of their capital funds while operating expenses as allowed under statute; and number three, the kind of housing agencies that must convert to asset management. These are all critical issues that must be decided before 2011.

H.R. 3521 would require negotiated rulemaking to settle the issue of management fees. The fees that the Department is attempting to impose on housing agencies are, in many cases, insufficient and will not meet the needs of housing agencies that have been historically underfunded.

In addition, these fees appear to have been arrived at in an arbitrary manner. Negotiated rulemaking on the subject of management fees would allow the Nation's housing managers to work with HUD to determine a reasonable fee for managing public housing. Because the date for full implementation of asset management would stay the same, negotiated rulemaking would not delay or stall conversion to asset management.

On the use of capital funds for operating expenses, the statute is very clear. Housing agencies have the ability to move 20 percent of their capital funds to their operating fund. However, in its guidance, the Department has disregarded this plain-as-day statute and has limited capital fund fungibility to 10 percent. The bill simply asserts what is already in law.

Large housing agencies will benefit the most from asset management due to the economies of scale that will result from streamlining their operations. By raising the threshold for conversion from housing agencies that manage 250 units to those that manage 500 units, the bill simply ensures that only those housing agencies with the ability to benefit from asset management are required to comply with it.

Furthermore, the bill makes sure that asset management does not stifle tenant participation and resident organization. Public housing residents are very concerned about how asset management will impact their ability to participate and to organize. The bill ensures that the ability of residents to remain involved and to be represented is not impinged upon.

Mr. Chairman, this bill does not undo, reverse, or undermine the original negotiated rulemaking between housing agencies and the Department. It simply settles four outstanding issues so that asset management can move forward.

Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion.

Madam Speaker, I rise almost in disbelief that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle, led by Mrs. Bachmann, would dare bring to this floor a motion that basically would say to us that the Federal Government cannot direct this issue on Federal property.

We own these public housing authorities. The people who are here live under the rules that we develop for living in public housing. We are confronted with the problem in America, and that problem is, unfortunately, and painfully, we have poor people who are isolated, and they find their power and their strength in the gun.

There are far too many guns raging every night in America in public housing authorities, whether it is Los Angeles or New York or down south.

What you find are young jobless men in gangs who shoot throughout the

night where people are ducking under their beds, afraid to open their doors. Many of these public housing authorities are on main thoroughfares, next to shopping centers, on your way to the airport.

These bullets don't limit themselves to inside these public housing authorities. They could end up shooting people who are passing through the area.

I understand, perhaps, the argument that one would make about constitutional rights. While I disagree with that, I think it is foolhardy and foolish to talk about we don't have the authority to determine what happens on our property.

There are those in this room who would shout down public housing authorities and not give people a place to live at all, because they said there is too much violence, there is too much joblessness, there is too much violence. There are those of us who have worked for years not only to clean up these public housing authorities but to make sure that the people who live there are abiding by the law.

I am in disbelief that anyone could believe it's all right to continue what is happening in America today in many of these public housing authorities where young people are dying. Of course we don't like it. Of course we are appalled at it. We are pained with it. But give me a break. All of us are much more responsible than this motion to recommit would have us believe.

I would yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Madam Speaker and Members, our majority leader just put before us a motion that I think we should all support. It is unreasonable for us to think that somehow we are going to not give this House the opportunity to provide leadership on crime.

There are Members on the opposite side of the aisle who would identify themselves as being law and order people, of wanting to get rid of guns and crime. Well, this is an opportunity to show where you stand. Do you stand with us to keep Americans safe? Do you stand with us to make the rules on Federal property, or are you going to vote us down?