Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1851) to reform the housing choice voucher program under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937.

I thank the gentlewoman, not so much for yielding but for the really extraordinary work she has done on this, the gentlewoman from California, and I want to say how much I admire the two tracks she has worked on. On the one track, she has been one of the leaders on our side in the House on the issue of Iraq and ending our involvement in the war in Iraq where I am a strong follower of her.

Simultaneously, she has engaged in some very careful and thoughtful legislative work, and I think that is the mark of a complete legislator, to be able to do the ideologically based advocacy but also work in a bipartisan way, continuing work which began when she was the ranking member and in a seamless way to go forward.

I spoke during the rule where I expressed my strong support for the legislation. I have rarely seen legislation so broadly supported by the landlords, by the local housing authorities that administer it and by the beneficiaries. There is a three-way operation here, and all of them consider this bill to be an improvement.

As the gentlewoman from Illinois said, it does not improve everything as much as everybody would like; nothing ever does. But she is correct, this is an improvement. I would ask my friend from California to yield to her so we can talk about it, but she has already done some of the things that she talked about. For instance, in the manager's amendment, we will increase the reserves available to housing authorities to avoid any damage that would come in the transition on the new funding formula. I know the gentlewoman has some other concerns, and I hope if the gentlewoman from California will yield to her, I can respond to them.

The gentlewoman has stated this correctly. I know this is going to be in the appropriations bill. We expect it. I haven't seen the appropriations bill yet. I have great confidence in the subcommittee chairman, but I certainly agree with her in principle. And unless there is some very unusual wording which we could change, yes, I would be subject to saying, yes, that is exactly what we intend.

The answer is, again, yes. This is a very important subject which the gentlewoman from Illinois has identified. I promise we will work together. If we decide this needs to be a legislative change, I can promise the gentlelady that the committee will entertain the appropriate legislation and do that.

The answer here is definitely yes. I think a hold-harmless provision is appropriate.

The purpose of the change, as the gentlewoman knows, in our mind was to prevent a kind of downward ratcheting in the overall usage. But consistent with that, we don't want to penalize particular authorities.

We have already done some work, for instance, with the Dade County authority to take into account the fact that their shortfall came because of a hurricane, so they were not penalized by that. But the hold-harmless provision is a perfectly reasonable one, and I agree with the gentlewoman. I promise to work with the gentlewoman to do whatever we need to do legislatively to accomplish it.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California is absolutely correct. The alternative interpretation would make no sense.

Of course, HUD should have and does have the authority to select replacements. What we set was a maximum number of participating agencies, and if an agency withdraws, then a new agency should be replaced.

If I may, I should note that the chairman of the subcommittee, who is such a devoted supporter of fairness, has raised some questions about the Moving to Work program, or whatever the new name is, and I have spoken with her. And I think what would be appropriate, and I think we would all agree, when we return from the summer recess to have a hearing on how the Moving to Work program is, in fact, operating, and I think that would be an appropriate thing to do.

But certainly under this law and under the agreements we reached, we set a number of housing authorities that are eligible to participate, and there shouldn't be any question, if an authority drops out, then HUD has the obligation, not just the permission, but the obligation to replace it.

I thank the gentleman from California.

I appreciate the gentleman from California making this very important point because it gives us a chance to highlight an important issue that this committee will be acting on.

I should just note that later today we will be considering an amendment on behalf of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) in similar circumstances, and we will be directing HUD to allow these to go forward.

The gentleman just learned of this, I know, and brought it to our attention, and I would begin by saying to him, if necessary, I would be supportive of doing the same in his case. I hope it won't be necessary.

Here's the situation that may people may not understand. Forty years ago and more, or about 40 years ago, we began, not us, with the exception of Mr. Dingell, began a program of affordable housing where the Federal Government lent people money at either no interest or very low interest in return for it being affordable, but for some reason they put what they called an expiration date of 40 years.

Now, we stand to lose a lot of housing that is good housing currently affordable. We are looking for ways to let that be transferred to others who would keep that it way. I think HUD is being overly technical in some of these interpretations. It would clearly be in everybody's interest, for no budgetary cost we can preserve these units.

By the way, if the units are lost, what then happens is, under certain laws, the current tenants are entitled to enhanced vouchers. So we would then be paying more in enhanced vouchers to a new landlord. That doesn't make sense.

I just want to make this commitment to the gentleman. I hope after today's bill, which I hope it passes and the amendments for Mr. Markey and Ms. Pryce are passed, that we can then sit with HUD on a bipartisan basis and try and find a way for them to do this administratively. If they tell us that they need a small fix, if there's some legislative problem, we could do that on suspension immediately. Even the Senate would do that one quickly.

I would say this. I hope that we will, today, get HUD's attention so that we can sit with them and work this out. I would rather have it done in policy. If necessary, we'll do a little fix.

And I would also say before the end of this year, and this is high on the agenda of the gentlewoman from California and myself, because this situation occurs all over the country in everybody's district or in most districts, if necessary, we will pass a bill that will give HUD all the authority necessary to prevent this loss of affordable housing for no good reason.

So I admire the gentleman for bringing it to our attention. I think, frankly, if we pass this bill and pass the Markey-Pryce amendment, we'll probably get a better response out of HUD, and if necessary, we will legislate it.

I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chairman, again, I want to emphasize, this is a process that began when the Republicans were in power, when Mr. Ney was the chairman.

The gentlewoman from California was the ranking minority member and has continued in her chairmanship. The gentlewoman from Illinois is the ranking member. This is an example of how you can make something better and deliver better, with one exception, there is no additional money in this bill.

I hope that we will succeed in authorizing 20,000 new vouchers. That's an issue we will debate, although it is subject to appropriation, as to whether or not it gets done. I think our appropriator friends would like to do it.

But most of what this does is to improve the delivery. We talk about it a lot. It isn't always done. And in that context, we often thank the staff.

This is a case where the staff of the Financial Services Committee and subcommittee on both sides, we already did a great deal of work; this is a more technical bill than many that have come forward.

This is a less than ideological breakthrough. We hope to have some of those. We have had in the past. It's more a systemic examination of a very large program with improvements of a technical and specific sort in many aspects of it. It took a good deal of hard work, and it took a good deal of mutual cooperation.

As I said, there were some differences, and we will debate those differences, but it should be made clear that those differences come within a context of a broad agreement on making the program better.

There is a lot of talk about waste and fraud and abuse. Waste and fraud and abuse are more generally decried around here than diminished. This is a bill that will make it much less likely that money will be wasted, much less likely that there will be an abuse of the public purse. As I said, let me say in closing, it is to the credit of the gentlewoman from California, the gentlewoman from Illinois, and the people who have worked with them.

Every stakeholder is a supporter of this bill, the landlords, the tenants, the advocacy groups, the housing authorities that administer it. It is rare that you get this degree of agreement. It's a process that began with civil conversation. I am pleased to see, at least on this night, it's going to end with a civil conversation, and the product will be significant improvements in one of the most important social programs in the Federal Government.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman has given a very clear statement of what is in here. This bill does not create the bilingual mandate; it puts it where it should be.

The other thing I would say is this, and I understand there are some who oppose it on principle. But from the court's standpoint, having HUD do the translation of all these documents means that they don't have to be done individually. So it also is cheaper for HUD to do. It is not just that it is more appropriate for the Federal Government to do it, but it is cheaper, because there will be some basic HUD documents so this will avoid the unnecessary duplication of translations. And I thank the gentleman for that very clear way he stated it.

The gentleman and I are of a similar generation. It is my understanding from some of my younger staffers that they don't ship documents these days; they have other ways of getting them there. I couldn't send one, myself, and my friend couldn't receive it. But, fortunately, it wouldn't be up to us.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that I be substituted for the gentlewoman from California as the manager for the remainder of the bill.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition. And unlike my distinguished friend, the gentlewoman from Illinois, I'm really in opposition.

I yield myself 3 minutes.

First, Madam Chair, in the interest of conciliation that has marked this debate, I would say to my friend from California, I would be willing to accept this amendment that puts a time limit on people being able to stay in section 8 if we could work out a time limit on their being poor. I think it is entirely accurate that when you're no longer poor, you should no longer be able to live in section 8. But what if we can't?

I can understand people who think that there are adults who have not been very responsible in their life choices, but some of the adults come with children. The gentleman exempts the disabled and the elderly, but his amendment does not exempt families with small children. So you have a parent with children.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Would the gentleman point that out to me in the amendment?

No. They have a certain number. They can make certain exemptions up to 20 percent.

Yes, not exceeding more than 20 percent of the families. It doesn't single out children. Well, maybe there will be 30 or 40 percent, because in my experience, it may differ, you say make an exception for a hardship. That's not the exception for people in section 8; it's the rule. There aren't a lot of rich people living in section 8 or middle income people.

The fact is that under the gentleman's amendment, if adopted, there will be single parents with children of 7 or 8 or 10 years old, several of them, and at the end of 5 years, they'll have to move. Those kids didn't do anything to anybody.

And you know what we've learned from education and from homelessness, 7 years, the gentleman tells me. He does give them 7 years. It's very biblical. But they'll still have to move after 7 years.

Churning poor people isn't useful. Making people move isn't useful. We've adopted some rules here. The gentleman knows we agreed with him that we should not charge them for more rent if they're making more money. We don't want to have a disincentive. We've done other things to improve it.

But here's a fundamental point. People in section 8 housing are there because they meet strict income criteria. Under the gentleman's amendment, someone who continues to be poor, who continues to meet the income criteria, who has lived up to every rule, who has small children, who has tried diligently to get a better job, but in many parts of this country, by the way, we're talking about working people. There are many people who can work full-time at twice the minimum wage and not be able to afford rental housing in his district or in parts of my district or in other districts, the gentlewoman from California's district. And they'd be evicted. They'd be evicted from housing that they were eligible for, for no reason other than the clock.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I would say to my friend from California, work on that in a future amendment and we will look at it.

But I want to address the gentleman from Ohio. He says he wants to help these people and save them. Boy, would they be in trouble if somebody came to hurt them. He is going to help them by evicting them when they remain economically eligible. And he says it is encouraging dependence.

In fact, in many parts of this country, you can be making two and three times the minimum wage and not be able to afford decent rental housing, and that is who gets the section 8.

And then he says that section 8 housing is so terrible that we have to keep people from having to live there. But does the gentleman think that there are people who say, ``You know what? I can live in a nice place or I can live in a lousy place. I think I'll choose a lousy place until the gentleman from Ohio comes along and rescues me from it''?

People live in the best place available to them, and throwing them out of the place they now live in when they have done nothing wrong because you don't think it is good enough for them when there is no alternative that is as good is hardly helping them.

The section 8 program is one that serves many people who work. It is a sliding scale of subsidy, and to say that it encourages dependency totally misunderstands the program. Many of these people are people who are working and they work at low-wage jobs in areas with high rent. How are you encouraging dependency by telling them and their children that after 7 years they go out? What kind of an incentive is that?

So, Madam Chairman, this amendment takes people who have already been in some economic difficulty and makes their lives harder. I hope that it is rejected.

Madam Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague for yielding.

And I want to say, as I said to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), people are saying why are you making this exception. We are making this exception because we think this ought to be the rule. And we are dealing with this now because we have time problems in this area and in the area of the gentlewoman from Ohio. But it is our intention to pass legislation before the end of the year, I think on a bipartisan basis, that will make this a rule for the whole country. So this is not singling out any one area except for the fact that we face time restraints, as the gentleman from California did and the gentleman from Ohio did.

So I want to thank my friend for bringing this forward. And I want to make it clear this is the first step of what we believe will be a general policy of preserving affordable housing.

Madam Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

The gentleman is a member of the committee defending the committee's product. I believe he has the right to close; is that correct?

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has two parts.

One part is to reiterate what is already the law. It is already the law that only people who are in the country legally may benefit from this. The second part is how to enforce it, and what it does is to continue an unfortunate tendency that goes counter to everything we have tried to do about privacy, of making the Social Security card a universal identifier, and there are real dangers in that.

Members who have been concerned with privacy know that an unreasonable and unrestricted use of the Social Security card is a problem. Indeed, we have talked about legislation, bipartisan, to restrict the requirement that you give your Social Security number. But here is what this bill says. It does not change the law. It's already illegal for people who are not here legally to get these benefits.

The gentleman mentioned 26,000 FHA loans in Colorado, zero section 8s. I haven't heard the evidence. I would be glad to listen to it. I will invite people, if there is evidence that this is a problem with section 8, let's listen to it. But here's what you impose on the housing authorities. There is now a requirement that people show that they are here legally. But now in this legislation, if it's adopted, would narrow that.

So here is what you would have to take to get someone who wanted to get into section 8:

They could show you their passport. The number of really poor people carrying passports is less than you might imagine. Although, I don't know what they might imagine, so I take that back.

Or a USCIS photo identification card. Well, if you are a citizen born in the United States, you don't have one.

Or a driver's license. You may not have a driver's license.

So if you are an 82 year-old who doesn't travel a lot to foreign countries and you are an American citizen, what are you going to show them? Your Social Security card. What this does is put more legal emphasis behind that.

I would say to Members, Members can vote as they wish. But the next time people complain to you about privacy problems and about Social Security numbers floating around being misused, if you voted for this, say, yes, I helped, because that's what this does.

The only thing this adds to American law is a requirement that most people trying to get section 8s will have to show their Social Security card, because a lot of them won't have driver's licenses, and they won't have passports. If they are American citizens, they won't have that card. The most common form of identification required will be the Social Security card.

I have been working, the people in the Energy and Commerce Committee, the people in the Ways and Means Committee, we have all been working to restrict the idea that the Social Security card is an ID card. I thought that was fairly generally accepted, that we don't want the Social Security card to be the ID card.

What's the Federal Government saying here? Because, yes, you can say,

well, who wants to steal the identification of a poor person? You know, being up against a section 8, no big deal. But once the Federal Government, the minority has been consistently arguing, once we have stated the Social Security card is the most universally accepted, the Social Security card is considered to be the best form of identification, then what's the argument against every business in America doing it? How do you stop this from becoming that universal identifier?

Members can cover themselves by voting for something that's already in the law. It's time to cover yourself anyway; it's kind of late.

But understand what Members will be doing. They will be furthering the practice of using the Social Security card as an identifier. They will be weakening our efforts to undercut.

Members may be unhappy to understand the implications of what they are doing. But I do not think it is wise for this House to continue a pattern of saying that the Social Security card will not just be a means of checking for Social Security but will become the universal identifier, that people will have to show it. Because if we, the Federal Government, say you have to show it, then how do you tell the hotel that they can't say it? How do you tell anybody else that they can't require the production of Social Security cards?

The logical consequence of this will be a serious impediment to our efforts to protect privacy and to deal with identity theft. The unrestricted use of the Social Security card is a serious problem there, and this makes it worse.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House on the motion to recommit, I report H.R. 1851 back to the House with an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1851, the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007. As you know, I introduced H.R. 1851 on March 29, 2007. I want to thank each of my colleagues, both on the Committee on Financial Services and in the House, who have joined with me to see that this important legislation passes the House. I especially want to thank Chairman Barney Frank for his leadership, Ranking Member Judy Biggert, and Christopher Shays for their original cosponsorship and support of H.R. 1851.

It has been less than 2 months since the Committee on Financial Services considered major reforms to the section 8 program. The Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007, which passed the Committee on Financial Services by a vote of 52-9, is truly the culmination of work that began in the 109th Congress.

There are many Members of Congress who have expressed major concerns to me about the future stability of the section 8 voucher program, given the recent changes in the funding formula and its impact on tenants. This bill addresses many of those problems and will return much needed stability to the section 8 program and the 2 million low- income families who rely upon it.

We heard from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, public housing agencies, national housing interest groups and advocates, and other housing experts about the importance of reforming the section 8 program. While there is consensus that the section 8 program needed to be reformed, HUD disagrees on how to reform the program.

National housing organizations like the National Low Income Housing Coalition and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities which represent those directly affected by the change in the funding formula agree that basing the funding for a program as important as the voucher program on data that is 3 years old is just simply bad policy.

In 2004, Congress changed how we paid public housing authorities for vouchers under lease. Instead of paying the actual cost of the voucher, the decision was made to pay for what the

voucher cost during a 3-month period in the previous year. This had disastrous consequences for PHAs. Many saw a cut in their funding.

While section 8 recipients had to bear the brunt of this policy change as waiting lists closed, many low-income families who had been waiting for affordable housing for years suddenly found housing denied to them. Because of cost concerns, some families were denied their right to move to areas that may have been a bit more expensive but had better job and educational opportunities. Some families saw an increase in rent as many PHAs scrambled to cut costs.

As families struggled under this formula, so did some of our Nation's largest PHAs. The snapshot funding system had consistently and has consistently underpaid some PHAs to the benefit of others. Because of the funding instability, these PHAs had no reason to house more families. As a result, housing authorities are sitting on $1.4 billion in unspent voucher funds. This nonuse of our voucher dollars is unacceptable because we have lost 150,000 vouchers as a direct result of the funding formula.

Clearly, this formula must be changed for the good of public housing agencies and the families they serve. HUD is just wrong in this issue. I flatly reject their just-released statement of policy on the bill. H.R. 1851 updates the voucher formula by basing funding for vouchers on the previous year's leasing and cost data.

The use of more accurate data will ensure that we stop overpaying and underpaying PHAs for vouchers, but instead come as close as we can to paying the actual cost of the voucher. This will enable HUD to better control costs than the section 8 voucher program. This funding approach was recently embraced by both Houses of Congress in H.J. Res. 20.

Vouchers are a scarce resource, but are even scarcer since the funding formula changed in 2004. Only one out of four families who are eligible for housing assistance, including vouchers, actually receive it. H.R. 1851 provides PHAs with several resources for increasing the number of families they serve.

First, the bill provides for the recapture and redistribution of most unspent voucher funds for housing agencies that have chosen not to use these dollars to PHAs that are capable and willing to spend them. This reallocation system will provide PHAs with an incentive to house more families.

Second, the bill provides tools for PHAs to pay for increased costs or emergencies without having to cut assistance to families or to request new funding from the HUD or the Congress. The bill allows PHAs to retain up to a 1-month reserve in the formula's first year. For those PHAs that need additional funds, the bill allows them to borrow up to 2 percent of their budget authority, to be repaid within the first 3 months of the following year.

Third, the bill provides an authorization of appropriation for 20,000 new incremental vouchers per year for 5 years. Congress has not authorized new vouchers since 2002.

During this period, we all know that the need for voucher assistance has grown, not declined. We are not meeting the need for housing vouchers for very low-income persons in this country, working families, the disabled and elderly. Additional vouchers are needed to make sure that the voucher program continues to keep up with the ever-expanding need for affordable housing in this Nation.

Fourth, the bill provides incentives for PHAs to increase families served by tying administrative funding to the number of families housed.

Fifth, the bill restores housing choice, an important feature of the voucher program which has been lost because of cost concerns. H.R. 1851 would eliminate the complex billing process between PHAs using portable vouchers.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that will restore stability and predictability to the Nation's largest Federal housing program by fixing the broken funding formula. H.R. 1851 provides for the needs of the families, public housing agencies and landlords who participate in this program.

The funding formula, however, is not the only aspect of the section 8 program in need of reform. Today, housing agencies and program recipients must deal with the complicated set of rules for the determination of rent, recertification of income and inspection of housing units. H.R. 1851 simplifies those requirements, while maintaining current affordable standards.

H.R. 1851 also includes tools to encourage voucher families to move to economic self-sufficiency. Families should not have to pay more in rent because they want to work to provide for their families. By disregarding a portion of earned income, H.R. 1851 would protect families from any resultant increases in rent.

Families also shouldn't be penalized for pursuing educational opportunities. Currently, many families in the voucher and public housing programs can find themselves excluded from work and economic opportunities because of a lack of credit history or low credit scores. The bill would allow the Department to work with the Nation's credit bureaus to allow for the reporting of the rental payment history of voucher and public housing recipients.

In addition, the bill will increase homeownership opportunities for voucher families by allowing them to use a section 8 voucher to make a down payment on their first home. Importantly, the bill provides for a change to the funding structure for family self-sufficiency coordinated to ensure that families have the tools to take advantage of these opportunities.

Without going into all of what is taken care of and what is reformed, I have tried to share the major reforms that we have created for our families who will be receiving assistance through the section 8 program.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield Chairman Frank such time as he may consume.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) 2 minutes.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) 2 minutes.

(Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

Mr. Chairman and Members, I am so very proud of the work of this committee.

I am so very, very pleased and honored to have the opportunity to work with Barney Frank. Not only is he a committed public policy maker, he is smart, and he is creative. And he is helping us to understand how to use this wonderful opportunity that has been afforded to us to do good for the people of this country.

I am so pleased about this particular bill, because I am so keenly aware of the housing crisis that we have in this country.

As we stand here this evening, there are people who are sleeping under bridges; living with them are families, children. Some of them are veterans. I come from a time and place where people did not have decent housing. I know, too, that not only has this occurred for many years in this country, where people have been living in substandard housing, even today we have people without running water. We have people without proper health facilities of any kind in their homes.

We have families that are crowded into one and two rooms. We have people whose roofs were leaking this evening. But because of this government and our ability to help government understand what it can do to help the least fortunate, we are able to pass this kind of legislation.

I want to thank my friends on the opposite side of the aisle, again, Mrs. Biggert, for the cooperation that I have enjoyed working with her.

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this moment to thank someone who is not here in the Congress with us at this time.

When we first started this legislation in the previous Congress, it was with Mr. Bob Ney who served as chair of the subcommittee; I was the ranking member; and we put this bill out on the floor where it passed this House, and he deserves credit for all the work that was done.

I would also like to thank some of the other members who we have not heard from this evening in general debate and hopefully we will hear from a little later on. Mr. Green from Texas who insisted that we expand the vouchers to make them available to the needy families who certainly have been standing in line waiting on section 8 vouchers.

I would like to thank Mr. David Scott for being one of the most adamant and fierce defenders of the work that we have done and who has taken on the work of trying to educate some of our Members from the other side of the aisle, not only about the need, but how not to penalize the victims and people who are looking for housing opportunities who would not be able to get them but for section 8 and the work that we are doing.

With that, I would like to close by thanking the chairman who is so committed to helping those who need us most. He is certainly the kind of leader that we can depend on to make sure that everything possible is done, to utilize the time that we have been given in this committee to work for people who oftentimes have been dropped off of America's agenda. Again, he provides strong leadership. He is generous with sharing opportunities with everybody that serves on that committee. And it is because of that kind of leadership and, again, the cooperation from my friends on the opposite side of the aisle, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Miller, Mr. Shays, and others that we come to this floor tonight with a good strong bill that is going to help so very many people in this country, and it is the kind of public policy that makes us all feel very good about being elected officials.

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

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified by the form I have placed at the desk.

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, Mr. Barney Frank, and Ranking Member Judy Biggert for their strong support of the manager's amendment to H.R. 1851.

The purpose of the amendment is to reform and improve the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007, regarding inspections, flexibility in rent- setting, transitional funding for the Nation's Public Housing Agencies, administrative fee calculations, limited English proficiency requirements, and the Housing Innovation Program. It also makes technical corrections to the bill.

The amendment provides more flexibility to make inspections by requiring them less frequently than every 2 years. This change will allow PHAs in areas with a deteriorating housing stock to conduct additional inspections in order to make sure families are housed in safe and decent units. In addition, the amendment fills the need for inspections that can be conducted at the request of the tenant within a specific amount of time.

My amendment solves a real catch-22 that often arises in the section 8 program. Many section 8 landlords are not large real estate concerns, but mom-and-pop operations that are not getting rich. Where units operated by a landlord fail inspection, right now there is a real danger that the landlord will choose to leave the program rather than make the repairs. This benefits nobody. And there is the catch-22. The landlord wants to stay in the program; the tenant certainly wants to stay in the unit if it can be repaired; but current law makes this positive resolution difficult to achieve.

PHAs will have the option to make repairs on the landlord's behalf. If the PHA or the landlord choose not to make the repair, the amendment protects tenants who will have to move to a new unit through no fault of their own. In the event a PHA chooses not to make a repair and the landlord still declines to repair the unit, the amendment provides important tenant protections.

There is rent flexibility. Sometimes the rigid section 8 rent structure just

doesn't work. In order to find a rent mechanism that works, the amendment gives PHAs flexibility in setting rents. While the calculations may be different, the amendment preserves affordability standards that limit the amount of rent a tenant pays to 30 percent of his or her income. The 30 percent threshold is sacred, because we all know that if the rent exceeds this amount, tenants lose the ability to make ends meet.

When we move to a new funding formula, PHAs will need sufficient reserves to allow them to make the change smoothly and with little disruption for tenants. H.R. 1851 provides a 1-month reserve for the first year of the formula. But to ensure that PHAs are able to serve additional families in the formula's first year, the amendment moderately increases this reserve from the 1-month level to the 1\1/2\- month level. This ensures PHAs will have adequate funds to transition.

The amendment corrects the disparity between the calculation of the administrative fees for project-based units owned by PHAs and other units in the PHA's inventory. Units owned by PHAs would receive the same fee as other units receiving project-based assistance in the PHA's inventory, providing an incentive for PHAs to create housing opportunities by project-basing its own units.

The amendment also addresses HUD's problematic implementation of Limitation of English Proficiency requirements. The manager's amendment seeks to remedy this problem. The amendment calls for HUD to convene a task force of interested parties and stakeholders who will determine the documents that need to be translated, and to make these translations available in various languages within 6 months. HUD is also required to maintain a housing information resource center, including a 24-hour toll-free number and a document clearinghouse.

We also include Housing Innovation Program, that is HIP program, formerly known as Moving to Work, and this amendment makes several corrections to the Housing Innovation Program formerly called Moving to Work. These changes clarify that troubled agencies are not eligible to participate in the program, clarifies resident participation requirements, specifies job opportunities to be made for residents, and ensures that following demolition or replacement of public housing units, that families cannot be screened out of public housing unless they are otherwise ineligible under Federal law.

I ask support for the manager's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I ask for support for the manager's amendment to H.R. 1851 and passage of the bill. Again, I want to thank each of my colleagues who worked on this important amendment for their strong support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1851, the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act.

This is something we have been working on for years, and I am pleased we have it to this point today. I commend Chairman Frank. Barney, you have been great to work with on these issues. When we express concerns, he is always willing to look at policy rather than politics. We have arrived at a bill we can all look at and say, there are things we might change, but overall, we all agree it is a good bill.

I would like to commend Ranking Member Bachus for all of his help and assistance. Chairman Waters, it has been fun working with you on this issue, as well as Ranking Member Biggert.

Working together in a bipartisan manner, we have produced a bill that will help the section 8 program better serve families and communities across the country.

Over the years, Congress has grappled with the skyrocketing cost of the section 8 program, which is growing so rapidly that HUD's other programs are suffering as a result.

It is not feasible for the Federal Government to continue increasing funds for a program without enacting meaningful reforms.

In the 109th Congress, I introduced legislation to improve the delivery of housing assistance to families in need by providing flexibility to local public housing authorities, PHAs, and holding them accountable for results.

The goal of my legislation was to ensure that PHAs would serve as many families as possible within their budget. While the bill before us today does not go as far as my proposal in injecting flexibility to PHAs in their administration of the entire section 8 program, H.R. 1851 does make a number of improvements to the section 8 program to reform the simplified regulations for local housing agencies.

I appreciate Chairman Frank's willingness to work with me to allow for PHA innovation on a scale he is more comfortable with. While the bill before us does not apply flexibility to the entire program, I am pleased it at least allows a permanency and expansion of the Moving To Work program, renamed in this bill as the Housing Innovation Program,

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I thank you.

So HUD understands, if it does drop to 50, it should be moved up promptly to 60, and I look forward to the hearing.

Mr. Chairman, we have been working on housing issues for several years. I think we do have a very good job in this House coming to an agreement. Moving to the Senate, for some reason, things just don't happen as they should on that side of the Capitol.

But we have got tremendous housing shortages in this country that we have to deal with. We have to work on HOPE VI program to be more innovative to allow the private sector to get involved. We need to be able to take and move people through the system for public housing section 8 vouchers.

But the area we are really hurting in in this country is the move-up marketplace for people coming out of section 8, coming out of public housing and to be able to move into a house that's affordable. We all have problems in many of our districts where our children go away to college; we know people who, when their kids come back, they can't afford to live in the communities in which they were raised. We know many people who may be a school teacher, a police officer, a fireman, who drive 2 hours back and forth to work because they can't afford to live within the community in which they work. That should be a focus of Congress.

We not only have to deal with the HOPE VI program, we have to deal with the public housing program, the section 8. We have to look at streamlining the system where builders and developers in this country can bring affordable housing on line and make it available for people who are moving out of government assistance into homes of their home.

The Moving To Work program, I think, is going to work very well. It allows people to retain some earnings, to build up the savings to be able to afford to move into a home for the first time. We have a lot of nonprofits in this country that provide down-payment assistance, programs who help people that can afford a payment but don't have the cash on hand within which to be able to put down and pay the closing costs to move into a home.

We have got to look at the overall industry and say, how can we be innovative? How can we be creative? And how can we help people to help themselves? Now, I am a conservative. I don't believe in government programs going on forever. But I think people come to a point in their life where they need a helping hand.

We need to look at ways to help them go on their open to become self- sufficient. That's what I hope we do in Congress, not only look at reforming the government programs we have here today to make them more innovative, make them work for people. In L.A. County, there is a 10- year wait for people to go on vouchers or public housing. That has to change.

People wait for 10 years who are just as needy or more needy sometimes than people who are receiving assistance. But we have no way of moving those people out of government programs into their own homes.

That's what we need to look at, streamlining, removing the red tape, fast tracking, have some nexus between the cost that's assessed against the project and the actual cost of that project.

I want to commend Barney Frank. Over the years, he and I have worked on more legislation on housing I think than any two Members from the Republican and Democrat side together that try to create programs that work for people. Tonight's bill might not be everything they want. I know it's not

everything that Maxine Waters and Barney Frank wants, but it was an agreement between the two of us in a bipartisan fashion, Republicans and Democrats, to come and fashion a bill that would work.

I think this bill has some innovation. It makes some changes, and I think it moves us in a better direction. Are we where we should be completely? No, but we are moving in a good direction.

I look forward to cooperation from both sides.

I want to thank you for including my language on reform in the manager's amendment. This I believe goes a long way to create innovation in helping people gain self-sufficiency.

The main reason I want to speak today is because many on my side have a real problem with the requirement that language be translated into a language that anybody who might come to a HUD assistance program might require to speak, and your bill goes a long way.

I have consistently supported every effort to repeal President Clinton's executive order which requires any recipient of Federal funds to provide translations into any language an individual requesting service may speak; but recently, HUD has issued a requirement that says that any housing authority or PHA must provide this translation to individuals who come before them.

This is the Federal Government creating a mandate and requiring the private sector to pay the bill. And what you are doing I wholeheartedly support. You are saying that if the Federal Government wants to require a mandate, then they should pay the bill. It has been estimated that one of these translations can cost a section 8 individual or group or housing authority up to $10,000 for each language they want to translate the documents into, and what you are doing is absolutely correct. If we are not going to change the law, then let's not have an unfunded mandate placed on the private sector that the private sector has to pay for when HUD and the Federal Government wants to mandate it. And what you are saying is: HUD, if you want to mandate it, you pick up the bill. And I think that is very important that we do this, and I want to stand up saying I wholeheartedly support it.

I do not support the mandate, period, that Clinton imposed, but we are stuck with it. It is an executive order. And what you are saying is the private sector should not be suffering the burden of an unfunded mandate if the Federal Government wants to mandate it.

So I want to clarify for my side that what we are doing here is saying we are relieving an unfunded mandate on the private sector and placing the burden on the Federal Government, who should be responsible. And if we want to change the law, let's change the law. But until we change the law, the private sector should not suffer the burden of financing something the Federal Government is imposing on them.

I wholeheartedly support the manager's amendment, and I thank you for working with me on rent reform and other things.

Reclaiming my time, I think you are right. It is cheaper for us to pay for shipping than it is for them to pay for translations. Let's do it one time, ship the documents, and we deal with the problem, unless we want to change the law.

Reclaiming my time, we dinosaurs have to speak in the language we are accustomed to.

And with that, this dinosaur yields back the balance of his time.

Madam Chair, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment with my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) to limit the amount of time a section 8 recipient may receive housing assistance.

I believe this amendment offers a reasonable approach to a very difficult issue. The intent of this amendment is not to be harsh or uncaring. If you read the amendment, you will see that we provide exemptions for the elderly, for the disabled and for hardship.

This amendment is an attempt to inject fairness into this program, where we are faced with the fiscal reality that we do not have the resources to provide unlimited housing assistance to all those who want to participate in the program.

This amendment will help those who have been waiting a long time for their turn for the helping hand.

When we started working on section 8 reform legislation a couple of years ago, I asked my staff to review all the casework inquiries we had received from constituents about the section 8 program. This review revealed that section 8 recipients weren't contacting me to help them with problems with their housing or HUD regulations; the constituents who had contacted my office were complaining about the fact that they had been on the section 8 waiting list for years and were just as in need as those who are receiving assistance currently.

According to HUD, the average length of time families spend on the waiting list for subsidized housing in the United States is more than 2 years. In cities like Los Angeles, the waiting list is approaching 10 years.

How can we justify a situation where one person is given unlimited Federal housing assistance, while another who might have greater need is on the waiting list and unable to participate in the program for almost 10 years?

The answer is not to allow this program to continue to grow out of control by providing more vouchers. Rather, we must reform the program so that participants can transition into self-sufficiency within a reasonable period of time.

The answer is to institute a reasonable time limit for assistance, which would give more families the ability to benefit from our Nation's temporary helping hand.

The amendment I offer today is based on the successful reform we made to the welfare program in 1996. Under the amendment, the maximum amount of time during which a family may receive section 8 assistance is 7 years. Time limits would not apply to elderly or disabled families.

In addition, there is a hardship exemption for families who need extra time due to circumstances beyond their control.

While some might argue that we should increase the number of section 8 vouchers that are available so we can serve all those who are on the waiting list, the practical reality is that we cannot already sustain the growth in the current section 8 program. Our aim should be not to expand the program more but instead reform it to allow it to provide assistance to more people.

Even with the section 8 program growing out of control, it is not helping all the people that it could. This amendment is one way to ensure that our Federal limited resources may be used to help all those who need help.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

The intent of this amendment is to allow for hardship cases like that. A single mother who has young children would be a hardship.

We tried to allow the Housing Authority----

On page 2, hardship exemption, number 3. It allows the housing authority to create exemptions for families in a hardship. And that would be one of the exemptions.

I yield the balance of time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I think, Mr. Frank, you know my heart, and you and I have worked on a lot of stuff. I think Mr. Chabot and I would be willing to accept a 50-percent exemption for single mothers with multiple children who have a hardship, who are unable to move in the sector. So we are willing to cooperate. We are not trying to throw mothers with children out of the home.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would like first to thank all of my colleagues and their staffs from both sides of the aisle for working to craft a bipartisan section 8 reform bill that we are considering today. In particular I would like to thank Chairman Frank and Subcommittee Chairwoman Waters for their hard work, committee Ranking Member Bachus for his support, and the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Shays, who joined me as an original cosponsor of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan bill that passed out of our committee by a vote of 52-9. It is similar to the section 8 reform bill that then Chairman Oxley moved through the Financial Services Committee during the last Congress. It was a bipartisan bill then too, passing out of the committee by a voice vote.

The section 8, or Housing Choice Voucher Program, is the major Federal program helping the elderly, the disabled and the very low- income families find affordable housing in the private market. Today's housing vouchers are the primary tool of assistance provided under section 8.

Many of my colleagues served in this body when housing vouchers were first proposed and implemented under a Republican administration, that of President Reagan. The Section 8 Voucher Program was designed to move people away from large concentrated housing projects, like our Cabrini- Green or Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago. It allows individuals to make decisions about where they want to live, instead of forcing them to live in large public housing projects filled with crime, poverty and despair.

For the colleagues on my side of the aisle, I should admit, quite frankly, that this bill is better than I expected it to be. We have been able to get several key issues addressed in this bill that were not addressed in last year's Republican legislation.

I want to thank Chairman Waters, who coauthored with me a manager's amendment that the committee accepted during our markup that includes a number of provisions to increase the flexibility of project-based section 8 vouchers. It amended section 8 of the law regarding the use of vouchers to purchase manufactured homes, voucher reserves, portability, performance assessment, disabled vouchers and rent levels.

In addition, I am pleased that included in this bill is language that is identical to the Family Self-Sufficiency Act, or FSS, a bill that I introduced as a stand-alone measure. This

bill enhances HUD's FSS program by providing housing authorities with consistent coordinator funding. Housing authorities can then help more individuals move from public assistance to being self-sufficient homeowners.

Perhaps most important for Members on my side of the aisle is that this bill includes a significant expansion of Moving to Work, or the MTW program. Members on both sides of the aisle have public housing authorities in their district that seek to become Moving to Work housing authorities.

In my district, DuPage Housing Authority would like this status. However, to date, Congress has only authorized 32 housing authorities to be MTWs. During the committee markup, we increased the authorization to a total of 80, which is a remarkable achievement. In addition, the Moving to Work provisions in this bill require HUD to craft standards that will govern eligibility requirements from being considered and/or designated as a Moving to Work authority. This bill includes important tenant protections that make the MTW Program better than it is today.

Finally, I am also pleased that we included a provision that will measure the success of the program. Congress created the Moving to Work program in 1996, but it does not require HUD to establish standards and evaluate agencies' performance.

Now granted, the administration does not support this bill, nor did it support the Oxley bill last year or in the previous Congress.

Why? Well, because in their view, it does not reform the program enough. They believe it moves the program from one that is currently budget based to a unit-based system that Mr. Knollenberg spoke about earlier. But I think that point is subject to interpretation. And politics is the art of the possible; and absent this bill, no reform is possible.

This bill does not include everything that I wanted either. The section 8 funding formula my colleagues will recall was changed in the CR earlier this year. I have on several occasions offered amendments in committee to address this formula change, and we did include in the manager's amendment a provision that will provide PHAs a cushion in the transition year so they are not penalized for CR formula change.

I believe there is more work to be done. There are 1,200 PHAs. Half of those across the country do not suffer from unjustified and significant funding cuts as a result of the new section 8 funding formula included in the CR.

Chairman Frank has agreed to engage in a colloquy with me about this, and I look forward to doing that in a few moments. I hope we will continue to work together as we continue to address the continued shortcomings of this formula.

This is a good bill and one deserving of our support, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for it.

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

I thank the gentlewoman, and I would like to engage in a colloquy with Chairman Frank at this time.

Chairman Frank, as you may recall, the section 8 funding formula was changed through provisions in the continuing resolution. I did not support these changes because they did cut about 1,500 public housing authority slots in three counties in my congressional district. And as Chairman Frank can verify, I have on several occasions offered amendments to change this.

I am pleased that the manager's amendment includes a provision which addresses this problem. While I am pleased that we can take productive steps towards addressing the shortcomings, I believe we can do more as we move on, and it is my understanding that members of the Appropriations Committee have included a similar provision in the fiscal year 2008 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Appropriations bill. Would the chairman consider supporting this?

I thank the gentleman.

Again regarding the rebenchmarking, both the current formula and the one in this bill would base a PHA's annual funding level on a ``snapshot'' of the PHA's use of funds from the previous 12 months. However, I continue to be concerned that his annual benchmarking is unworkable when coupled with the congressional budget cycle. For this reason, I hope we can continue to work together as we move forward to address the continued shortcomings of this formula. PHAs have always stated and continue to argue that their main concern is to have predictability and certainty in funding so they can plan both voucher utilization and staffing. I know they would appreciate more predictability. If the snapshot and the rebenchmarking were done every other year, would the chairman continue to explore with me the benefits of a biennial versus annual rebenchmarking?

Again, I thank the gentleman.

In addition, I would like to ask the chairman to consider other measures to assist PHAs in the transition period and in the subsequent years. For example, I would like the chairman to consider a so-called hold-harmless provision attached to the new section 8 formula. The provision would provide PHAs with an assurance that they would not lose more than a certain percentage of funds in any given year due to the utilization rates in the previous years. The reasons for this are many, but at the heart of the matter is the simple fact that the so-called excess in funds that many PHAs were caught with when the new formula was dropped into the CR were not in fact excess at all but the result of deliberate choices, court-ordered requirements or special set-aside categories of

vouchers. The PHAs should not be losing all of these vouchers in the first year. The percentage could range from perhaps 10 to 25 percent. And again, PHAs deserve stability and predictability in funding. Would the chairman work with me to craft a hold-harmless provision to include in this bill or the appropriations bill?

Again, I thank the chairman; and thank the gentlewoman for the time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller), a member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), another member of the Financial Services Committee, to engage in a colloquy with Chairman Frank.

Mr. Chairman, might I inquire of the time remaining on either side of the aisle?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

In closing, I would again like to thank the subcommittee chairwoman, Ms. Waters, Chairman Frank and Mr. Shays for introducing and working on this bill. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, which received a 52-9 vote coming out of our committee.

The bill we will vote on today is a good bill. It is the result of bipartisan cooperation. It contains many provisions more than in last year's bill that help families dependent upon public assistance become families that are independent and self-sufficient tax-paying productive members of society.

It's my sincere hope that we can further improve the bill, especially the sections involving the funding formula. I thank the chairman for agreeing to work with me on this.

I truly hope that we can move this bill beyond the House during this Congress and that the Senate and the administration will work with us to reform this important program.

America's families and American children deserve a 21st-century section 8 program.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I would like to thank Chairwoman Waters for her manager's amendment and, in particular, the 12.5 percent for the transition in the public housing.

Madam Chair, I yield to my colleague, Mr. Miller of California, for the balance of the time.

I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Violence Against Women Act reauthorized and signed into law by President Bush in 2005 ensured that victims of domestic violence would not be evicted from public or section 8 housing for screaming for help, for calling the police or simply for being the victim of a crime. However, one provision of H.R. 1851 inadvertently removes these protections from certain public housing authorities, leaving victims in these housing authorities with inconsistent or no protection.

I think that the Housing Innovation Program provisions in SEVRA exempt high-performing public housing authorities from certain Federal regulations, giving them a measure of regulatory reform. Unfortunately, some of the VAWA protections were among those that would no longer apply to these high-performing housing authorities. This would create confusion for public housing authorities and leave victims vulnerable to eviction after an assault.

I support the amendment, and appreciate this being added to the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, the gentlewoman from Ohio is unable to get here in the length of time needed, so I would just say that we support the amendment.

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

Let me thank the distinguished gentlelady from Illinois for yielding me the time.

Mr. Chairman, this is a historic occasion, a historic time. I want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Frank, and the chairwoman of the subcommittee, Congresswoman Waters, and the ranking members, for what I hope will ultimately be an enormous step forward for the homeless and the underserved.

I also want to acknowledge my colleague and friend, Congressman Al Green, who has worked so hard to ensure that cities who have the background of Houston, Texas, are also accounted for. Those are cities that have for years had thousands of individuals on the waiting list.

I think the number 25,000 in Houston has literally become a number of the decade, because there has been a waiting list of 25,000 for as long as I can remember, having served on the Houston City Council.

I am very pleased to acknowledge that we are going to reorder the formula so that cities can borrow against moneys that are already in their account, so that the cities that have an excessive number of individuals on the waiting list can still be able to utilize those dollars.

I want to pay special attention to the resources that will be utilized for the disabled and special resources that are going to be utilized for innovative programs dealing with, for example, the housing innovation program, which has previously been Moving to Work.

One of the issues that I hope that we will look forward to is giving incentives to cities to help them reduce the waiting list. Now, you can change the formula, and I had an amendment that would provide at least a pilot study to construct, if you will, an incentive to make sure that cities took advantage of this new structure and worked hard to reduce the waiting list.

It is one thing to have the laws in place. It is another thing to have housing authorities sit by and just watch, rather than working very hard to bring down their list.

I am very grateful that we now have an understanding that there is less and less affordable housing being built in America. These individuals that use section 8 vouchers are working people, people who are paying their taxes, who cannot find housing in high-priced markets. This section 8 voucher program will allow these individuals to purchase homes. They are creative, unique and forward thinking, because they are individuals who have put their stake down in these particular areas.

I am also hoping, as I close, and I am hoping that we will continue to work on this issue, is to ensure individuals will not be put out because of combat pay for soldiers who are coming back.

I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1851, the ``Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007.'' I support this bipartisan measure for three important reasons. First, H.R. 1851 reforms Section 8 vouchers to make their allocation more efficient and targets them based on need. Second, the legislation also increases access for rural families, and expands the number of families receiving housing vouchers. Third, the bill permits families to use housing vouchers as a down payment on a first-time home purchase, and includes other provisions to encourage family self-sufficiency including incentives for families to obtain employment, increase earned income, pursue higher education, and save for retirement.

I wish to express my special thanks to the Chair of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Frank, for his leadership and commitment to affordable housing for low and moderate income families. Let me also thank the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters, the Chair

of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity for her yeoman work in bringing this important and much needed legislation to the House floor today.

Mr. Chairman, a strong America requires strong families and communities. Affordable housing is critical to maintaining strong families and communities. Section 8 housing vouchers provide vital rental assistance for low-income families, seniors, and the disabled to help them afford housing. The Section 8 housing voucher program contributes to the strengthening of our nation. Let me discuss briefly for our colleagues some of the more beneficial provisions in the legislation.

The legislation eliminates inefficiencies that have resulted in $1.4 billion in unused funds and provides incentives for agencies to use funds to assist more families. Thus, the voucher Funding Formula is made more efficient and will lead to an increase in the number of families receiving vouchers. And that is good because the number of housing vouchers issued has declined more than 150,000 since 2004. The bill authorizes 20,000 incremental vouchers in each of the next five years, for a total of 100,000 new vouchers.

Mr. Chairman, I also support this legislation because it protects tenant rights, promotes home ownership, and encourages economic self- sufficiency for low income voucher and public housing families. The legislation also protects housing agencies adversely affected by formula changes, by allowing them to use voucher reserves in the transition to maintain the number of families being assisted.

Homeownership is promoted because, for the first time, families will be permitted to use housing vouchers as a down-payment on a first-time home purchase, and to use vouchers for purchase of a manufactured home on leased land. Economic self-sufficiency for low income voucher and public housing families is encouraged because H.R. 1851 includes several incentives for families to obtain employment, increase earned income, pursue higher education, and save for retirement. The bill also increases voucher opportunities for lower-income working families in rural areas.

Finally, the bill contains several tenant protections, including provisions to preserve voucher families' ability to move to other areas, to address excessive voucher rent burdens, to provide for more accurate fair market rent calculations, and to protect voucher holders in units that are in need of repair.

Mr. Chairman, for millions of our fellow citizens, finding safe and affordable housing is still a constant and often futile struggle. Today, about 1.4 million households nationwide participate in the voucher program; but not all qualified applicants are guaranteed housing. The demand for housing assistance consistently exceeds the limited resources available from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and local government agencies. Long waiting lists have, unfortunately, become very common.

In my hometown of Houston, the largest city in Texas, and the fourth largest in the United States, there is a multi-year backlog of applications for individuals seeking government assistance. It is not unusual for individuals and families to be placed on the waiting list for more than three years.

I believe it imperative that something be done to reduce this backlog. That is why I offered an amendment to the bill that would establish a pilot program to aid in the reduction of Section 8 waiting list.

Mr. Chairman, I also offered an amendment providing that funds received by a section 8 family from a family member serving in the Armed Forces in a hostile combat theater be excluded from the computation of income for eligibility purposes.

The military is one of Americans most precious resources and one whose efforts ought to never be taken for granted. Daily, these men and women in uniform risk their lives to ensure the national security and safety of our country. One way to express our gratitude to them is to offer relief to their family members.

Eligibility for housing vouchers is typically based on the family size and the total annual gross income, which ought to not exceed 50 percent of the median income for the area in which they choose to live. HUD's Housing Voucher (HCV) handbook lists both special pay (except pay received by a service member who is exposed to hostile fire) and the Base Housing Allowance (BAH) as income for purposes of determining a family's income eligibility. Excluding monies received by section 8 tenants from family members serving in combat zones when evaluating income eligibility for Section 8 housing would provide a little piece of mind to the families of these soldiers serving overseas.

The final amendment I offered sought to provide economic opportunities to Section 8 tenants by requiring the Secretary of the Housing and Urban Development carry out programs whereby public housing agencies develop curriculums and policies designed to increase employment and contracting opportunities for recipients of tenant-based rental assistance under the United States Housing Act of 1937. These economic opportunities can be in the form of maintenance, inspection, and management of rental properties for which rental assistance is provided.

Families living with Section 8 vouchers can achieve self-sufficiency through active participation in education and employment. Self- sufficiency eliminates the need to be dependent on public assistance and increase one's self esteem and sense of accomplishment. My amendment was intended to help section 8 become more economically independent.

But taken as a whole, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1851 is a very good bill and represents a significant step forward in the direction of an enlightened policy of affordable housing. Accordingly, I strongly support H.R. 1851, the ``Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007.'' I urge my colleagues to join in voting for this much need legislation.