Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 3996) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Florida yielding me the time. I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, specifically as they relate to really the author of HOPE VI, who is Jack Kemp, at that time in the early nineties the Secretary of Housing in the United States of America.

I think that today, as we talk about HOPE VI and the wonderful attributes that HOPE VI has brought not only to inner cities but to thousands of people who live in these new areas as opposed to a large housing complex, it is a testament to the dream that, as Secretary, Jack Kemp brought to our great Nation.

Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this restrictive rule and to a number of the provisions included in the underlying legislation in its current form. This legislation, which alters a successful public-private partnership and housing program that encourages public housing authorities to work with the private sector to create more livable public housing, has a number of avoidable, and I repeat, avoidable shortcomings; and I hope that there will be at least some of them that will be corrected during this restrictive rule process as is provided for by the rule.

One of the provisions in this bill particularly threatens the continued participation of private developers in the program, which jeopardizes HOPE VI's continued success. I believe that is part of the success, the public-private partnership, in creating mixed-financed and mixed-income affordable housing.

By mandating compliance with privately developed green building rating systems, rather than providing market-based incentives to reach these goals, this legislation creates additional cost burdens for green compliance and adds further impediments to an already complicated financing structure which could discourage developers from undertaking future projects.

Further, because the legislation makes specific reference to only one green building rating system, this legislation federally mandates winners and losers and stifles future innovation and technology advancement in all aspects of green buildings.

I think it would be a flaw to say that the one standard that has been developed in 2007 and 2008 would be the only model as we move forward in public housing. I certainly would not want that in the free market where, as a user of the free market, I would be told one standard that was developed this year is what we will use. The future is bright, and I wish that our friends on the other side would recognize that there will be many, many more technological advances made in the future; and mandating one standard today is a flaw in this bill.

Thankfully, my former Rules Committee colleague and friend from West Virginia, the gentlewoman Shelley Moore Capito, has an amendment to this legislation that will require minimum green building standards, in other words, the floor, not the ceiling, that will make mandatory graded sections of HOPE VI application, requiring a minimum standard for green building, and allowing for developers who build to a more stringent green standard to receive even greater credits. That means that we could exceed the one standard. For instance, if you lived in a very cold area, or very hot area, you could exceed for maximum utilization the opportunity to build the house, up front, properly.

So our friends on the other side who are telling us the one standard is like a one-size-fits-all rather than a minimum standard, however, if a determination is made in the section of the country that might artificially or might otherwise be able to take advantage of a different standard, a different way that might improve economical standards of efficiency, it wouldn't be included.

By utilizing this market-based approach, rather than the one-size- fits-all

standard of our friends in Washington of a heavy-handed government mandate, this amendment achieves the goal of building green without stifling innovation for new and improved green building standards.

I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, because it will take our friends who are Democrats if we are going to pass this, to please support this commonsense fix to the legislation.

Another aspect of this legislation which requires improvement is the elimination of HUD's current authority to award demolition-only grants, which would prohibit the demolition of unsuitable public housing without the replacement of those units. Mr. Speaker, clearly there may be instances when demolition-only grants are appropriate; for instance, when public housing authorities may have already assembled a financing package to fund redevelopment and replacement housing activities, but are lacking the funds for the demolition itself.

Additionally, because of their age and denigration, it is certainly possible that some distressed public housing sites would not be viable candidates for redevelopment. There are lots of places in this country where something was built 15, 20, 30, 40 years ago that might not be easily accessible to the modern conveniences of today. And these sites, though only partially occupied or completely vacant, because they put a demand in a particular area, would be excluded. In these instances, other forms of housing assistance such as section 8 vouchers may be more appropriate in a community than public housing.

To address this flaw in the legislation, I have introduced an amendment to allow HUD to retain this commonsense authority, rather than trying to tie their hands by taking some of the options that had previously been available to them off the table.

For their part, HUD has noted that these grants have provided housing authorities with resources to raze, or to tear down, distressed developments and relocate impacted families. The result is a cleared site that more readily attracts Federal or private resources for the revitalization of the property. I encourage all of my colleagues to once again support this commonsense amendment to allow HUD to retain the flexibility to respond to individual cases, particularly in those cases where a public housing authority does not even have a HOPE VI renovation grant, leaving it with fewer options in revitalization in its most distressed or otherwise not as easily used sites.

Mr. Speaker, in the last five budget proposals to Congress, this Bush administration has advocated the elimination of the HOPE VI program, citing the completion of the program's mission and ongoing inefficiencies within the programs. These programs have been assessed by the administration's objective Program Assessing Rating Tool, what is called PART, which has deemed HOPE VI to be not performing, inefficient, and more costly than other programs that serve the same population. In addition to these fundamental problems, the PART assessment notes that ``the program has accomplished its stated mission of the demolition of 100,000 severely distressed public housing units.''

I include a copy of this assessment as well as a Statement of Administration Policy on this matter for insertion into the Record.

Program Assessment: HOPE VI--Severely Distressed Public Housing

The HOPE VI program revitalizes distressed and obsolete

public housing, usually replacing it with less dense housing

combining a mixture of public and privately owned housing.

The program awards grants through a competitive process to

State and local public housing agencies for this activity.

NOT PERFORMING: Ineffective

The program is more costly than other programs that serve

the same population. It also has an inherently long, drawn-

out planning and redevelopment process.

The program has accomplished its stated mission of

demolishing 100,000 severely distressed public housing units.

The program coordinates effectively with related programs

in designing a comprehensive program to improve the

community.

We are taking the following actions to improve the

performance of the program:

Implementing changes to complete projects more quickly. The

average time to complete a project after award is being

reduced from 8 years to 7 years with further improvement

anticipated.

Reducing the average cost per unit of the project. (The

average grant award has been reduced from $30 million to $20

million to improve project management.)

Terminating the program since it has completed its mission.

The remaining balance of over $2 billion will be spent during

the next several years to complete funded projects.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 922 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague from the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 922.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 922 provides for consideration of H.R. 3524, the HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, controlled by the Committee on Financial Services, and the rule also makes in order seven of the eight amendments submitted to the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support today of the HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act and this rule. HOPE VI is a partnership between the Feds and local communities that started in the 1990s that revitalizes our communities across this country by replacing old, distressed public housing projects with modern housing and new communities that are healthy, safe and affordable.

Our renewed effort could not come at a more important time, because so many families across America are in the grips of a housing crisis. Foreclosures are way up, and options for safe, clean and affordable housing are down. Just last month in my home county, Hillsborough County, in Florida, there were over 1,000 foreclosures filed, a huge jump from last year. And affordable apartments and housing are few and far between.

The House of Representatives over the past months has been doing a great deal to throw lifelines to our families, our seniors and veterans when it comes to housing. We have passed bills in this House that help homeowners avoid foreclosure, that provide resources to local communities, to build safe and clean affordable housing, and that cracks down on predatory lending.

Families across America also should be aware that the Congress passed a helpful new law that is now in effect for 3 years that relieves homeowners

facing foreclosure from paying income taxes on their discharged mortgage debt, meaning that homeowners who refinance their mortgage will pay no taxes on any debt forgiveness that they receive. Previously, loan forgiveness was often taxed as income.

We are going to keep working to provide families with affordable options for safe places to live through the HOPE VI reauthorization and this rule today.

HOPE VI has been very successful since its inception in the 1990s. HOPE VI has revitalized neighborhoods across the country, including in my hometown of Tampa, Florida. A little public investment can be the linchpin to wider community redevelopment in communities across this great country.

HOPE VI completely transformed the distressed public housing complexes of College Hill and Ponce de Leon Court public housing projects in Tampa into the new Belmont Heights Estates. I attended school when I was younger next to these housing projects, and I saw firsthand what these conditions can do to an area and the folks who live there.

Behind me are posters of before and after, before HOPE VI, and then after the investment of HOPE VI.

So many public housing projects have deteriorated to the point that the health and safety of families is at risk and surrounding businesses and neighborhoods suffer. Since 1992, through HOPE VI, many communities have revitalized and transformed severely distressed housing into safe and livable communities. And 15 years later, this Congress, in a bipartisan way, but led by Democrats, will renew our commitment to safe, clean and affordable housing for families across this great country by building on the success of HOPE VI investment.

Over time, through HOPE VI, we have demolished nearly 135,000 severely distressed public housing units and replaced them with modern, safe and clean neighborhoods that do not concentrate poverty in a single location. What happens on the ground to these neighborhoods? Crime rates decrease, employment rates increase, and fewer folks have to rely on public financial assistance.

In Tampa, demolition started in 1999, and 8 years later we have built 860 rental units. Some are for families who need a little help and others are market rate. We built 74 new safe and clean homes for seniors and mixed in single family homes, some for rental and some for purchase.

More important than the buildings, however, and these were very bad, the new Belmont Heights Estates community made possible by HOPE VI has improved people's lives in the surrounding community and private investment has followed. Families are thriving in their new revitalized neighborhood, and their success stories are remarkable, because, remember, to qualify for that helping hand of an affordable home, most folks are required to improve their own self-sufficiency, like Belkis Rodriguez, who, after completing job training, has been promoted at the day care center where she is employed and she is now on the path to becoming a public schoolteacher. And Patricia Gowins in Tampa, a mother of two, is working on her high school diploma while working at a local hotel since her community has been revitalized. My neighbors and their stories of success are proof that HOPE VI is able to make positive contributions to our communities.

Our update legislation today will make further improvements and ensure that residents who are displaced by revitalization efforts will have the right to return to their neighborhoods. Because of the shortage across America of clean, safe and affordable housing, it is vital that the number of units demolished are replaced so that we do not shortchange our neighbors who have been asked to leave their homes.

We are committed to ensuring that homes built with the help of Federal funds are sustainable and energy efficient, and that helps save money in the long run. Our efforts today will make the American Dream of home ownership possible for more families across this country. And thanks to Chairwoman Maxine Waters, Financial Services Committee Chair Barney Frank and Congressman Mel Watt of North Carolina, thanks to them and their leadership and their dedication to safe, clean, affordable housing for our families, we are going to do a great service for families across this great country.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this rule and the HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.