Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3524) to reauthorize the HOPE VI program for revitalization of severely distressed public housing, and for other purposes.

Since HOPE VI, we've had a lot of success. I think the program is a success. How the program has been a success is not as simple as simply replacing units on-site. In fact, most of the residents of these housing projects have actually moved to other communities through vouchers. The main thing, I think, to remember is that it has eliminated some of the most dangerous and distressed public housing in the country and created livable, mixed-income communities; and that's very good.

To date, there have been over 200 HOPE VI grants, and to various housing agencies. Almost all of them have been a success. These grants have been used to fund public/private partnerships that have changed landscapes once populated by failed housing projects and crime-ridden neighborhoods into vibrant mixed-income, mixed-use communities, providing quality, affordable housing for those in need.

I think anybody on the Financial Services Committee who's attended these public hearings has heard the testimony of the living conditions that

these tenants in public housing were living under. High crime areas, vandalism, dilapidated conditions, paint peeling off, lead, plumbing that didn't work, electricity that didn't work, heating that was inadequate, areas where there was such a concentration of crime that many of the youth growing up in those communities really had no or very few role models.

In my home State of Alabama, there are several examples of projects where HOPE VI has made a tremendous difference. For example, Park Place is a 12-block section of downtown Birmingham that a HOPE VI grant has transformed into an attractive, mixed-income housing development. Not only has it decreased the concentration of low-income residents living in a crime-infested area with very few prospects of jobs, but it's also improved the surrounding communities. The surrounding communities, the property values were going down. It was more dangerous. And those areas have been improved. The commercial district downtown has improved. One of the stories that we need to realize is not only the improvement that we see in the community that was replaced or rehabilitated, but the community around it.

But most residents, if you track where they've gone, they have chosen, through vouchers, and a lot of them just by simply turning down housing assistance, they've moved to other communities, and they're doing quite well. They've moved to communities where they think there are better schools. The students of those residents who have actually moved and not returned, they're doing better, on the average, than those residents who chose to return.

In New Orleans, we actually found a lot of people chose not to go back to the original community because they did not trust the public housing authority. And that's one reason that we've tried to advocate not simply replacing these units on a one-by-one basis, and re- duplicating a bad situation.

The Tuxedo Court project in Birmingham is going to replace 488 obsolete units of aging buildings with 331 modern, for-purchase rental homes. All the residents who are not going to relocate there have been given vouchers, or if they qualify, public assistance, and many of them have chosen to move to communities across town.

Our vision, and I think the vision of both Democrats and Republicans on this committee, should be for the residents of those communities to better themselves and better their living conditions, their housing. It should be vibrant, mixed-use communities with good housing, safe streets, strong schools.

In a previous debate, I mentioned a public housing project in downtown Atlanta called East Lake. East Lake was so dangerous that the police refused to patrol it. And it's not alone. Children slept in bathtubs or closets for fear of being hit by random gunfire.

A developer by the name of Tom Cousins proposed replacing this crime- ridden project, where there was very little hope for the residents, very little future for the youth, with a mixed-income community. And that's been done. Today, professionals, accountants, doctors, lawyers, people with good income, are living side by side with families still on subsidized and on public assistance. The end result is a sharp reduction in crime in East Lake. But the more important result is a sharp increase in the level of academic achievement and success among the youth living in that community.

Now, for all the good, we are concerned about this bill. First of all, it eliminates the Main Street Revitalization program, which was for the benefit of smaller communities.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I thank the chairman for that.

Another problem that we have with it is eliminating the demolition- only grants, because on certain occasions we feel like public housing, there may be adequate housing other places, or vouchers or a better system. But I think one of the main causes of concerns we have, and the gentlelady from West Virginia, is the green requirements. While some of the provisions have merit, we believe that they have, number one, the unintended result of reducing the number of affordable housing units that can actually be constructed under HOPE VI.

In fact, I have a letter I would like to introduce from the homebuilders, but also a coalition of National Affordable Housing Management Association. And basically what they say here is that the additional cost burdens of these particular green compliances will greatly discourage the development of these projects and drive up the cost substantially.

January 14, 2008.

Hon. Barney Frank,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Maxine Waters,

Chair, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity,

Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Spencer Bachus,

Ranking Member, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Shelley Moore Capito,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Housing and Community

Opportunity, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Committee Leaders: The undersigned organizations, who

work collectively in support of affordable housing and

promoting sustainability in our nation's housing stock, are

writing to express our opposition to H.R. 3524, The HOPE VI

Improvement and Reauthorization Act, in its current form. We

do appreciate that the forthcoming Manager's amendment will

make several important improvements to the bill. For example,

we support allowing HUD to grant a waiver to the one-for-one

replacement provision under certain circumstances. However,

we suggest that HUD also should be able to provide waivers

related to funding realities. If one-for-one replacement

renders a deal infeasible, there should be enough flexibility

to waive that provision. We also believe that extending the

period in which all replacement units must be provided after

demolition has been completed from 12 to 36 months is very

sensible. HOPE VI projects must contend with many variables,

from weather conditions, securing local approvals and working

extensively with tenant groups. All of these factors can

increase construction periods beyond what otherwise might be

considered normal.

However, while our organizations have long-supported this

important housing program, there are several provisions in

the bill which we believe are so onerous that private

developers may no longer be able to participate, jeopardizing

the very existence of the program. Specifically, our main

objection is that the legislation will unfairly and

unnecessarily drive up development costs by mandating

compliance with privately developed green building rating

systems. The additional cost burdens for green compliance

adds further impediments to an already complicated financing

structure for HOPE VI projects and could greatly discourage

developers from undertaking future projects. In addition,

there are provisions related to the occupancy of HOPE VI

projects that are unclear and could be interpreted to prevent

owners from instituting sensible eligibility standards.

Green Building Mandate

Our members are committed to working on increasing the

sustainability of affordable housing, as well as keeping

housing affordable in all markets. We believe that mandatory

green requirements in the HOPE VI program will have

unintended consequences that far outweigh any sustainability

gains. Dramatic reductions in additional HOPE VI projects is

a very real possibility because of increased costs that

developers would have to finance based on the proposed

provisions in the bill. There is a limited amount of HOPE

VI funding, and a developer's ability to leverage a

significant amount of additional financing is limited. In

addition, total development costs (TDC) are capped. Unless

TDCs are allowed to increase (or alternatively, the costs

of complying with the green building requirements are

excluded from TDC), the developers may be forced to scrimp

on other important aspects of these developments to pay

for costly green components. Decisions on what aspects of

green development can be afforded in these properties

should be left to the developers and their partner public

housing agencies. HUD has recognized this as a practicable

approach, as demonstrated by its implementation of green

building incentives in the Mark-to-Market program.

Further, the specific reference to only one green rating

system will stifle innovation and technology advancement in

all aspects of green building. During a time when green

building is growing exponentially and programs are competing

to be the ``greenest,'' Congress should not be codifying one

inflexible benchmark that cannot adapt to future

sustainability needs. Congress should not be

using the HOPE VI program to pick winners and losers in the

green building arena.

Keeping green building as flexible and competitive as

possible reaps the greatest environmental and economic

rewards. Mandating a specific green building requirement for

HOPE VI is short-sighted, overly restrictive and costly and

is a disservice to community affordable housing needs.

Sustainable green design for all housing markets should be

protected from government mandates and rigid statutory

benchmarks. Green building means something different in every

climate zone, just as every market has differing demands for

affordable housing.

It is important to understand that opposing a green

building mandate in no way signals opposition to

sustainability or environmental conservation. Green building

should not be driven to the lowest common denominator or

serve as a deterrent for development of these vital housing

projects. Opposing the green building requirements in this

bill demonstrates awareness that green building is an

important variable that needs to be incorporated into HOPE VI

in a manner that is functional, flexible, and encourages more

energy and resource-efficient construction in the future.

eligibility provisions

The Limitation on Exclusion provision (Section 7(m)(2))

could be interpreted to place limits on the public housing

agencies' (PHAs) ability to establish reasonable eligibility

criteria for occupancy in the new HOPE VI development. The

provision says that replacement housing under a HOPE VI plan

must be subject to the same policies, practices, standards,

and criteria regarding waiting lists, tenant screening

(including screening criteria such as credit checks), and

occupancy that apply to other housing owned, managed or

assisted by the PHA.

However, the provision goes on to say that a household

cannot be excluded from the HOPE VI development, except to

the extent specifically provided by other provisions of

Federal law (e.g., relating to safety and security in public

and assisted housing; ineligibility of drug criminals,

illegal drug users, alcohol abusers and dangerous sex

offenders; as well as preferences for the elderly and

disabled; and persons convicted of methamphetamine offenses).

This seems to preclude PHAs from screening for credit

worthiness or other typical screening criteria.

We support holding all households to the same standards. We

note that HUD's Housing Choice Voucher Handbook encourages

PHAs and owners to adopt screening policies that take into

consideration tenancy history related to payment of rent and

utility bills; caring for a unit and premises; respecting the

rights of others to the peaceful enjoyment of their housing;

drug-related criminal activity or other criminal activity

that is a threat to life, safety or property of others and

compliance with other essential conditions of tenancy. The

proposed provision in H.R. 3524 could be interpreted to

undermine HUD's existing policies and create an unfair

disadvantage to other eligible tenants who wish to move into

a HOPE VI property. Further, it appears that the bill may

provide a de facto preference to applicants that have been

released from a prison or other correctional facility. It is

the responsibility of the owner/landlord to ensure a safe

environment for all residents, and such a preference may

preclude their ability to honor that responsibility.

The owners of HOPE VI developments must be able to

implement good business practices to attract investors and

lenders. Otherwise, the developments will be viewed as too

risky, and the developer's financing prospects will be in

jeopardy. We suggest that these provisions be clarified to

ensure that PHAs can continue to set fair and reasonable

screening and eligibility standards that are applied to all

households.

other

We believe that the provision eliminating HUD's ability to

award demolition grants should be revisited. There may be

circumstances under which a demolition only is warranted. HUD

and PHAs should be allowed to retain this current authority.

summary

Our organizations are committed to furthering the

sustainability of affordable housing and believe that the

success of these efforts lies in the ability of the industry

to take advantage of the innovations that are constantly

occurring in the market. The provisions in H.R. 3524, The

HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act, as currently

written, will impede these efforts by mandating the use of

one specific system. In addition, owners of HOPE VI

properties must be able to establish reasonable and workable

occupancy policies that are fair to all prospective tenants

in HOPE VI communities.

Our organizations stand ready to work with the Committee to

craft an effective and appropriate way to address green

building and eligibility standards within the HOPE VI

program. Thank you for your consideration of our views.

Institute of Real Estate Management.

National Affordable Housing Management Association.

National Apartment Association.

National Association of Home Builders.

National Multi Housing Council.

More important, and let me close by saying this, and this is a serious problem with this bill, I have a letter from the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. They say that the standards we're using in this bill, let me quote them:

``If a builder wants to use wood and receive LEED certification,'' that's the program we're using, ``they are largely forced to use wood products grown and manufactured overseas.''

``This puts American workers and American products at a competitive disadvantage.''

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,

Washington, DC, January 11, 2008.

Hon. Barney Frank,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Maxine Waters,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development,

Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Spencer Bachus,

Ranking Member, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Shelley Moore Capito,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Housing and Community

Development Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairmen Frank and Waters, and Ranking Members Bachus

and Capito: On behalf of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters

and Joiners of America, I am writing to express our concerns

with provisions of H.R. 3524 that would require non-

residential construction in HOPE VI grant projects to meet

the United States Green Building Council's Leadership in

Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating criteria.

For the last four years, the Carpenters have had a great

interest in green building legislation as it affects both

parts of our union--the part that constructs buildings and

the part that harvests and manufactures wood products that

are used in them. Therefore, we are strong supporters of

green building, but want to ensure that building ``green''

does not result in ``pink'' slips for our members.

Over this time, we have found a number of important flaws

in the LEED system that we believe makes it unsatisfactory

for the marketplace and should not be the only standard

referenced in legislation.

Our primary concern is LEED's failure to recognize all

credible, sustainable forestry certification programs in its

certified wood credit. LEED only provides credit to builders

using forest products certified by the Forest Stewardship

Council (FSC). No credits are awarded for wood products

produced by other companies independently third party

certified to the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI)

Program standard or the American Tree Farm System, the two

largest sustainable forest management systems in the United

States. These two systems account for over 90 million acres

of forestland, yet do not qualify for points under LEED.

Therefore, if a builder wants to use wood and receive LEED

certification, they are largely forced to use wood products

grown or manufactured overseas. This puts American workers

and American products at a competitive disadvantage.

LEED also discriminates against wood compared to other

imported building products. LEED credits builders for using

``rapidly renewable materials,'' which are defined as

products originating from plants harvested in a 10-year

cycle. As you might expect, construction lumber cannot earn

this credit since it takes more than ten years for a tree to

grow to a usable size and diameter. Instead, if a builder

uses exotic crops such as imported bamboo, they can earn the

credit.

As a result of these flaws, we have actively supported

other green building systems that are inclusive in regard to

the use of wood. One system that we have supported at the

national, state and local levels is the Green Building

Initiative's Green Globes program. Unlike LEED, it recognizes

all the major sustainable forestry programs used in the

United States and does not put wood at a disadvantage

compared to other building products. Also unlike LEED, Green

Globes takes into account the concept of life-cycle analysis,

or the cost to operate the building over time.

As a result, Green Globes has been increasingly recognized

by federal agencies and state governments. At the federal

level, it has been recognized by the Department of Health and

Human Services, the Department of the Interior and the

Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, 11 states have

written Green Globes into their state green building

statutes,

Therefore, we request that the legislation be modified in

order to specifically include other standards, such as Green

Globes. Should any amendments be offered to create a process

that gives the government the opportunity to review and

select a standard, we request that language be included that

gives all eligible and viable green building standards equal

consideration and ability to participate in the process. We

believe that with these changes, we will produce a piece of

legislation that meets all of the legislation's goals.

Sincerely,

Douglas J. McCarron,

General President.

Number 1, under the standards you've adopted, we won't be using wood, when it's one of our greatest renewable resources. We won't be using wood. So you will be putting a lot of carpenters and laborers and joiners out of work, the framers.

But second, if you do use wood, you will have to import that wood. So, as an article in Slate magazine said, and it's the reason the University of Michigan in one of their projects is trying to decide whether they want to use this LEED program, LEED, this article in Slate magazine actually pointed out that you can put up a bicycle rack and you get the same credit as if you used an energy efficient heating system. That's wrong.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Would you continue to work with us to make sure that, in fact, is possible?

Madam Chairman, Members of this body, let me say that there is a difference of opinion on our side and different opinions on our side. But I do believe that one thing ought to be clarified, and I believe I share this opinion with all my colleagues on this side. We believe the purpose of HOPE VI is not simply to replace a failed housing project model with another public housing project or community. We believe the purpose that all of us have, Republicans and Democrats, is to help those families in those communities have a better life and a better future, and hope.

As I think the Urban Institute and others have found, the majority of those residents, and I don't dispute what the gentleman from Texas said, there are and there will be residents that will say I want to go back to that community. But, hopefully, and one thing HOPE VI does, that community is replaced by a much better community, a much better mixed-income community where there is more hope, there is less crime, there is less poverty, and there are residents in those communities that can actually help those children get jobs. But most, and every study that has looked at this, and maybe someone on your side will correct me, most, if not every, study has shown that the average resident of that community is going to choose not to come back to that same location, but to relocate to another area because in most cases the area they would relocate to is closer to their job, it's closer to a school, or if not a school, it's closer to a higher performing school, and they choose, through a voucher, to relocate. In fact, a substantial minority of those residents relocate to another community, get a better job, get a better income, and move totally off public assistance.

There are a lot of fond memories in those communities, but there are a lot of people trapped in a circle of poverty in those communities and surrounded by criminal elements. And when we do this one-for-one model, I believe we are taking resources where we could give people the choice of relocating elsewhere and reestablishing what we had that we tore down.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's amendment, and I would like to commend the majority on addressing several of our concerns. I think particularly the developmental timeline is very significant. I think it's a much more practical way of dealing with notifying tenants about changes, eligibility standards are much improved, and the provision on illegal aliens.

I do think that the one-on-one replacement provision, and I very much appreciate you, I think, making a good change, and I think it allows more of our Members to support the underlying bill. I do intend to continue to support doing away with the one-on-one replacement for the reasons I said in earlier debate, because I still believe that for most people the best option is for them to move out of this concentrated housing. I also think it has an unintended consequence of restricting the ability to create a mixed-income community that you attract a mix of individuals into.

So I will support the Neugebauer amendment. I think the green building requirement, it does do away with some specific references to the LEED rating standard. However, the Green Communities rating system for residential construction remains in the bill, and I believe that we have got to give more flexibility. Let's be environmentally sound, but let's don't adopt one standard, particularly as expressed by the Carpenters Union, the Laborers Union, also the National Home Builders. Let's not discriminate against American wood products.

As we continue to move forward, I am sure that the cooperation you all have shown today will manifest itself, and we will continue to work on that. I will support, and I believe very much we need Mrs. Capito's amendments on the green building requirement.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3524, to reauthorize the ``HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2007,'' introduced by my distinguished colleague from California, Representative Maxine Waters. This important legislation will reauthorize and make changes to the HOPE VI public housing revitalization program. I would like to thank Congresswoman Waters for her consistent and dedicated work on this important issue, as well as to commend Chairman Frank for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today.

Madam Chairman, this legislation reauthorizes, with important changes, the HOPE VI public housing revitalization program. Among other provisions, it provides for the retention of public housing units, protects residents from disruptions resulting from the grant, increases resident involvement, and improves the efficiency and expediency of construction. The HOPE VI program, created in 1992, has worked to improve the Nation's most dilapidated public housing units by providing much needed resources to public housing agencies. These funds have directly benefited countless Americans, particularly the elderly and those with disabilities, partnering with local agencies to improve conditions in public housing units and communities.

In December, we were reminded of the existing problems in our Nation's public housing systems when protesters in New Orleans skirmished with police in New Orleans, as the City Council unanimously voted to destroy 4,500 public housing units. I was appalled that, in the holiday season, the citizens of New Orleans and survivors of Hurricane Katrina were put in a position in which they had to fight to keep a roof over their heads. The residents of New Orleans who saw their homes and livelihoods destroyed by natural disaster two years ago are far from alone in their need for improved public housing; citizens across the country are feeling the acute need for the housing reform delivered by this bill.

My home city of Houston faces unique challenges and opportunities. One of the most important of which is dealing with the impact of taking in nearly 200,000 Hurricane Katrina evacuees, an unprecedented act of generosity for which Houston is famous. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, nearly 2 million people live in Houston, the fourth largest city in America. When the metropolitan area is taken into account, the population swells to approximately 5.2 million. The Houston metropolitan grew in population by more than 950,000 people between 1990 and 2000.

Madam Chairman, according to the American Community Survey (ACS) conducted by the Census Bureau, there are 859,245 total housing units in the City of Houston, of which 748,323 are occupied--347,865 are occupied by owners (2.5 percent vacancy rate) and 400,458 by renters (11.8 percent vacancy rate). Though the average cost of housing and rent in Houston is low by national standards, Houston residents still face a problem when it comes to affordable housing. According to a 2006 study by the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, 28.4 percent of Houston homeowners and 51 percent of renters in the Houston metropolitan area spend more than 30 percent of their monthly pre-tax income on housing costs. This makes them ``housing-cost burdened'' as defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Fully a quarter of Houston renters are ``severely housing-cost burdened,'' meaning they pay more than 50 percent of their income in housing costs. The National Low Income Housing Coalition, in its report Out of Reach in 2006, estimates that in order to afford a 2-bedroom apartment at the FMR, a renter would have to earn $14.77 an hour, more than two and on-half times the minimum wage.

The affordability crisis is most pronounced among Houston's poorest and disabled households. Among the 83,367 renter households in Houston with incomes below 30 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI)--or approximately $18,500 in the Houston metropolitan area--more than half, 56 percent, of them spend more than half of their gross income on housing. Another 1 in 6 devotes more than 30 percent of their gross income for housing.

Moreover, there is little federally subsidized housing available to those in need. The Housing Authority's waiting list for Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers now has been closed for three years and there are still more than 10,000 people on the list. The average wait time is between 18 months and two years. It is estimated that more than 12,000 people are homeless on any given night in Houston: 6,583 of them are unsheltered and 3,600 of them are chronically homeless.

Madam Chairman, I support this legislation because it will begin to address the serious

housing problems we face in our own local communities, and as a nation. Among its many important provisions, this legislation requires that all public housing units proposed for demolition be replaced on a one-to- one basis, guaranteeing the total availability of public housing. This requirement will serve to protect low income residents under fair housing laws. Further, a mixed-income housing development must be provided on the site of the original public housing location and all replacement housing units must be located in a mixed-income community. The bill requires a third of the units in this development must be public housing units, with limited exceptions. Public housing agencies can build additional units on the site provided the provision of these units does not violate fair housing laws and the number of additional units is determined in consultation with residents, community leaders, and local government officials. Remaining units must be built in the jurisdiction of the public housing agency in low poverty areas and in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing.

The bill provides displaced residents with three housing choices: (a) a revitalized unit on the site of the original public housing location; (b) a revitalized unit in the jurisdiction of the public housing agency; or (c) a housing choice voucher, which can be used in areas with lower concentrations of poverty. Public housing residents of the revitalized developments must, under the provisions of this bill, be subject to the same screening criteria used for all public housing units.

This legislation also mandates adequate oversight, requiring public housing agencies to monitor and track all households affected by the HOPE VI revitalization plan. In addition, public housing agencies must develop a temporary relocation plan that provides comparable housing for all relocated residents, protects residents in transitioning to the private rental market with housing choice vouchers, provides for housing opportunities in 7 neighborhoods with lower concentrations of poverty, and extends the voucher search time to 150 days.

Madam Chairman, this legislation also provides for the active involvement and participation of residents in the grant planning process, including public hearings and four notices to residents on (a) the intent to apply for a HOPE VI grant, (b) grant award and relocation options, (c) grant agreement and relocation options, and (d) replacement housing.

The bill includes several provisions designed to increase the rate at which HOPE VI developments are constructed, which will help reduce the time tenants are relocated. The bill requires all new housing to be rebuilt within 12 months from the allocation of low-income housing tax credits or, for those grants that do not use tax credits, within 12 months of demolition or disposition. The bill waives the grant matching requirement for HOPE VI applicants in areas recovering from natural disasters or emergencies. This further helps these communities recover quickly and efficiently. Grantees that do not meet performance benchmarks will be penalized.

Finally, I would like to draw attention to requirements in this legislation mandating that all replacement housing and other structures part of the HOPE VI development to comply with certain energy-efficient green building standards. This Congress has made protecting the environment a priority, and I am pleased to see this provision included in today's legislation.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this extremely important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3524, to reauthorize the HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2007, introduced by my distinguished colleague from California, Representative Maxine Waters. This important legislation will reauthorize and make changes to the HOPE VI public housing revitalization program. I would like to thank Congresswoman Waters for her consistent and dedicated work on this important issue, as well as to commend Chairman Frank for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation reauthorizes, with important changes incorporated into the

Manager's Amendment, the HOPE VI public housing revitalization program. Among other provisions, it provides for the retention of public housing units, protects residents from disruptions resulting from the grant, increases resident involvement, and improves the efficiency and expediency of construction. The HOPE VI program, created in 1992, has worked to improve the Nation's most dilapidated public housing units by providing much needed resources to public housing agencies. These funds have directly benefited countless Americans, particularly the elderly and those with disabilities, partnering with local agencies to improve conditions in public housing units and communities. I also support the technical changes made by the Manager's Amendment, and I believe that they will ensure that this legislation works to the maximum benefit of all Americans.

Mr. Chairman, because I believe that this is strong and positive legislation, and I would like to take this opportunity to address a number of amendments offered by my distinguished colleagues. I would like to express my support for the amendment introduced by my colleague, Mr. Mahoney. This amendment will restore the set-aside funds for the Main Street grant program. Mr. Chairman, this important program provides resources for the revitalization of older, downtown business districts, while retaining an area's historical character. The Main Street grant program enables smaller communities to develop affordable housing while still retaining their traditional identity and roots in the past. I believe that this program is very important to countless communities across the Nation, seeking to provide for their citizens without losing sight of their shared history. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Mr. Mahoney's amendment to restore funding for this program to this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I also strongly support the amendment introduced by my colleague, Congresswoman Lee. This amendment will safeguard the rights of elderly and disabled tenants living in HOPE VI housing. Congresswoman Lee's amendment prohibits the eviction of elderly or disabled tenants based on the criminal activities of others, provided that the elderly or disabled tenant did not have knowledge of the criminal activity. This important amendment improves the underlying legislation by ensuring that disadvantaged members of our communities are not further victimized for events beyond their control. It allows Congress to stand up for the rights of those living in public housing, preventing the eviction of elderly and disabled residents as the result of the wrongdoing of family members.

However, I must oppose several amendments that I feel will harm the integrity of this bill. I stand opposed to the amendment offered by my colleague and fellow Texan Mr. Neugebauer, limiting the number of dwelling units that housing agencies are required to replace. Under the provisions of this amendment, only those units that are occupied as of the date of the HOPE VI application must be replaced, rather than requiring that all units torn down through the use of HOPE VI grants be replaced on a one-to-one basis. I strongly oppose this change, because I believe it weakens the one-for-one requirement in this legislation by creating incentives for housing agencies to increase the number of vacant units prior to seeking a HOPE VI grant, to decrease the overall number of units that must be replaced. I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment, and in support of the underlying language.

Mr. Chairman, I also must oppose the amendment offered by my colleague Mr. Sessions, reinstating the Department of Housing and Urban Development's authority to issue demolition-only grants. These grants, which have not been issued since 2003, provide resources for the demolition of properties and the relocation of families living there. While this legislation eliminates demolition-only grants, unless the demolition is done in connection with the replacement of dwelling units, ensuring that the total amount of units does not diminish. The adoption of this amendment would gut the strong replacement requirements of the underlying legislation, and would further reduce the already limited affordable housing stock in our nation.

I also oppose the amendment offered by Congressman King of Iowa. This amendment would prohibit any amount authorized under this legislation from being used to pay wages in compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act. The adoption of this provision would in effect nullify the applicability of Davis-Bacon to the HOPE VI program. Mr. Chairman, the Davis-Bacon Wage Determinations are issued by the U.S. Department of Labor, and they indicate the prevailing wage rates in a region, to be paid on federally funded or assisted construction projects. These standards ensure that workers on Federal projects are paid a fair wage, and I believe it would be extremely detrimental to workers and to our economy as a whole to exempt HOPE VI projects from these standards.

Mr. Chairman, I also stand in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague Congresswoman Capito, eliminating the requirements that all grants must comply with minimum Green Building requirements. I believe today's legislation, as introduced, makes important steps forward toward responsible stewardship of our natural resources, and Ms. Capito's proposal that compliance with Green Building requirements be only one factor in the evaluation of grant applications would weaken our effort to protect our global environment. The Capito amendment would weaken the minimum standards for energy efficiency set forth in this bill, and would permit the Department of Housing and Urban Development to propose much weaker green development standards than are currently required under this bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Capito amendment, and to keep the language set forth by this legislation.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this extremely important legislation by protecting the integrity of the underlying language, while making the technical corrections included in the Manager's Amendment to ensure that the intent of the legislation can be enacted.

I thank the gentlewoman who chairs the Housing Subcommittee for the time and for her very creative and diligent work on this bill and others. And I also want to acknowledge our new ranking member of the Housing Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from West Virginia.

Let me begin by noting that obviously in the parliamentary forum we focus on areas of difference. Members should note how small those are relatively in the context of this bill. This is a significant rewrite of the HOPE VI program in which there was not a lot of objection. In fact, I think every amendment but one that was offered was made in order. I disagree with several of the amendments, but I do want to stress the commonality of reform that is in here as we go forward.

There are two basic areas of difference. Two amendments on the other side of the aisle from the two gentlemen from Texas would reduce the requirement that with Federal money we replace low-income units that we destroy. Yes, there are low-income units that should be eliminated as they now exist, but that does not mean that the total number of housing units available for lower-income people ought to be diminished as a conscious Federal policy. And the amendments of my two colleagues from Texas would do that.

The Sessions amendment would allow the Federal Government to give people money simply to tear down all of the houses that poor people live in in a particular area on the grounds that those weren't very nice houses. No doubt in many cases they are not nice houses, but the poor people who live in those houses didn't decide voluntarily to live in bad housing as opposed to nice housing. They had nowhere else to go. And if you tear down where they now are and build zero in its place, you have exacerbated the housing crisis.

Similarly, the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) would diminish our capacity. We say if you tear them down, you have to replace them. You don't replace them in the same place. You can do it in a much broader area with more flexibility. You have 4\1/2\ years to replace the ones you have torn down and may go to the Secretary of HUD and get a waiver, say there is a court order, there is this land shortage. Some of these were, in fact, so useless. There are a lot of reasons you can go to the Secretary of HUD. So we are not saying that the one-for-one has to be followed in every case. We do say that should be the standard.

Here is the problem with the Neugebauer amendment. He says the housing authorities only have to replace units that they tear down that were occupied. Most people who run housing authorities are diligent, hardworking people in difficult circumstances, but there is incompetence in some housing authorities. People who have incompetently been unable to rent housing for one reason or another shouldn't be rewarded by then being allowed to tear that housing down.

In other words, if housing authorities, who have the obligation to use the money available to house people, refuse to do that or are unable to do that, we should not reward them by saying then you don't have to build those. And there will be places where people don't like poor people living in their community, and the political leadership of that community could then order the housing authority to leave some of those units vacant, and then we will apply for a HOPE VI grant and we will be able to replace far fewer because we will be rewarded for leaving them vacant.

The gentlewoman from West Virginia's amendment, and again there is some common agreement that we should go towards encouraging green building, but here is the difference. I know the homebuilders say this is bad for them, but understand, this is a Federal program with Federal money. We are not talking here about imposing on private-sector developers any requirement whatsoever to do energy efficiency. We are here as the landlord, not as the regulator.

What we are saying is that we are the Federal Government and we will set an example. We will take the money that we, the Federal Government, makes available, and hold ourselves to a high energy efficiency standard. If people think that is inappropriate and it is too expensive, they don't have to apply to come here. That leaves everyone in the private sector free to do as they wish.

Beyond that, one of the strongest advocates of this has been my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee. He has to fund all of this, and he has to fund it going forward. We don't simply build the HOPE VI projects and walk away. We don't. The builders do. It is not their fault.

If I am the contractor to build the buildings, my obligation is completed the day I have done the building and gotten the money for it. But we, the Federal Government, then have to fund it on an ongoing basis. What we are saying is, as the landlord, we want to build it in a way that makes it energy efficient going forward.

We will take an up-front cost because, over time, over 20 and 30 and 40 years, we will reduce our operating budget. So we are being told that as the landlord we can't make the decision about how efficiently to use funds and how to say we will reduce costs going forward. So I would hope that the gentlewoman's amendment is defeated. It would take it from a mandatory to one factor among many.

We also have an argument about the standard. We do mention one standard. The homebuilders are wrong in their letter where they talk about the LEED standard. That is out of the bill in the manager's amendment.

On the green communities, we do mention the green community standard; but we explicitly give the Secretary of HUD the ability to propose another standard if it is equivalent in energy savings, and that's the key.

So the amendment of the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) makes this one factor among many, not a required factor, and everything we do with our money to be energy efficient.

And, secondly, she would allow a much weaker standard in many cases than ours does. So we allow flexibility, but flexibility as to how to achieve the goal of energy efficiency, not flexibility as to how much energy efficiency to offer.

I hope the bill, as essentially presented, or a couple of amendments I think are relatively noncontroversial, are accepted.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

As the gentleman may know, an amendment is going to be offered to restore that, and I agree with the gentleman that that amendment should be accepted.

The gentleman from Alabama correctly quoted the carpenters' letter. The manager's amendment responds to that. The manager's amendment, which we are now debating, removes reference to the leadership and energy and environmental design. So the objection raised by the carpenters we thought had some validity to it, and the manager's amendment takes care of it.

So there is no reference to that. So two of the points the gentleman made we agree with, and we're correcting, restoring main street and removing any reference to LEED. There will be other differences, but I did want to acknowledge this is an example of how we're trying to work together.

I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

I appreciate the cooperative spirit, and we should note that the one-for-one replacement will remain in effect, but there's a question about what it accomplishes.

Let me describe the one-for-one replacement, because it is not nearly as prescriptive as my friend would have indicated. In the first place, communities will have 54 months after the demolition with which to replace the housing. Secondly, it does not have to be new public housing. We have explicitly added here the ability to do project-based vouchers. We have worked with some of those who in fact try to do HOPE VI, to make it more flexible.

Third, there's a waiver in here. One of the factors in the waiver, the gentleman from Texas correctly mentioned open spaces, one of the desirable things. My colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Capuano, offered an amendment that has been incorporated into the manager's amendment that would say when you apply for a waiver, your willingness to put in more open space would be one of the justifications for a waiver for one-for-one. So we do have flexibility.

On the other hand, I reject the notion that we shouldn't be prescriptive here. This is not the Federal Government reaching out and telling people what to do. This is a restriction on the expenditure of Federal funds for a limited purpose. Here is the problem: we do have a shortage of affordable housing units. We do not want to see a Federal program contribute to a diminution of that. We allowed flexibility in the replacement.

Here's the problem with the gentleman's amendment: most of the people who run housing authorities are decent, hardworking people who have taken on a tough job, and we have tried to help them. But there are political situations in some community where the people running housing authorities are not supportive of this purpose.

What the gentleman's amendment says is if they leave the units vacant, they can then permanently get rid of the units. That is the problem. Going forward it gives people an incentive or reward not to fill the units. Most housing authorities won't be like that, but there is incompetence and there are people who for political reasons say, We don't want these people, they are too much of a problem.

So rewarding housing authorities for leaving units vacant by allowing them,

if the people left them vacant may want to have fewer housing units, allowing them that is a very bad idea. We should have flexibility, I agree with the gentleman. But that is flexibility with the waiver; that is flexibility in how you deliver placement. In other words, show why you're trying to do it. But to diminish the requirement at the outset arbitrarily to reward people for leaving units vacant, to reward the incompetence. People say, We have got too many other units here. We're going to leave them vacant. Remember, elderly housing is a major component. That would be a very grave error.

We have, I believe, in much of this country a shortage.

Now, if a community comes forward and says to HUD, You know what, there is no population here left anymore, there is nobody who wants to live here anymore, those are considerations that can be put into the waiver. So we agree there should be flexibility. That is why we have a waiver component.

By the way, in addition to open space, if you show you are going to do day care facilities, if you show you are going to do health care facilities, that can further justify fewer units. If you say you are going to build more large units for large families, yes, you can trade in a couple of small units for a large unit. All of those are encouraged.

The only thing we disagree with, because we believe we have built flexibility in here, is, as I said, to give people in some cases those who are, and it is not the majority by any means, people who are not supportive of this, give them an incentive to leave housing vacant.

Now, let me say this to the gentleman: His amendment didn't say housing that was physically unoccupiable. I agree the bill does not make that consideration. I would say to the gentleman, going forward, we might be able to work on a situation where units that were physically not habitable might not be counted. I agree with that. If that was the amendment, I think we might be working something out, and I hope we will as it goes forward. But what the gentleman's amendment says, units that are perfectly in good shape, that the authority either can't rent because they are incompetent or decides not to, that those can be disregarded.

So I hope the amendment is defeated. But I would promise to work with the gentleman as we go forward so that units that are in fact not habitable, not occupiable, would not be counted.

I would yield to the gentleman.

Taking back my time, I would agree with that if we didn't have a waiver in there, if we didn't have a variety of ways of meeting the one-for-one replacement. It is not all public housing. In fact, one of the things I plan to do in future legislation in cooperation with my colleagues is to go to some of the other housing programs we may have, maybe the Low Income Housing Fund or others, and give a preference to housing authorities who have that HOPE VI obligation. So, in other words, there would be a wide variety of ways in which they could replace the housing, not simply by public housing, because, I agree, that would be self-defeating.

I appreciate that. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, first, there are two points,

and the gentlewoman tends to confuse the two. One is should there be flexibility in the standard. Both versions have that. Our version says the green communities or a standard promulgated by the Secretary, but we say it has to be substantially equivalent in what it accomplishes.

Secondly and more important, the bill with the manager's amendment says that a green component must be in any HOPE VI application. The gentlewoman dilutes that. She says it will be one factor that can be considered. But under her proposal, if you are very strong elsewhere, they would not have to be very much in the green. So there is a real difference there. We both say it is a good idea, but the bill says you must include the green component. Her bill says you may include the green component. You will get points if you do, but you might not. Both have flexibility as to how you reach that.

Now I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on HUD and Transportation.

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

First, Mr. Chairman, yes, the carpenters objected to the LEED standard. They did not object to the green community standard. We thought the objection was reasonable and met it.

Secondly, again, the bill, without the gentlewoman's amendment, does provide flexibility. We say, however, that when HUD does an alternative proposal, it has to meet the minimum standard. That is the difference.

We put in the minimum. The other difference is that her amendment would allow some of the projects to go forward without green components, depending on how they were otherwise rated and others would not.

I yield for the remainder of our time to the head of our Subcommittee on Energy Efficiency for the Financial Services Committee, my colleague, Mr. Perlmutter of Colorado.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Today's HOPE VI program is the direct result of the 1992 report submitted to Congress by the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing that said approximately 6 percent of the 1.4 million existing public housing apartments were severely distressed and recommended that they be removed from the housing stock.

Since Congress began appropriating funds for HOPE VI in 1992, the program has been revitalizing and replacing some of the most dangerous and dilapidated public housing units in the country with mixed-income communities. These grants play a vital role in a community's redevelopment and have changed the physical characteristics of public housing from high-rise tenements to attractive, marketable units that blend in with the surrounding neighborhood and help residents attain self-sufficiency.

While the goals of the program are to be commended, and HOPE VI projects remain popular with many Members of Congress, it is not without faults. The HOPE VI program has been criticized by the administration, which argues that grantees spend their money too slowly, and by tenant advocates, who claim the program displaces more families than it houses in new developments. Also, there are those who argue that HOPE VI is not an efficient method for meeting the current and future capital needs of public housing programs.

The bill we are considering today, H.R. 3524, makes several significant changes to the underlying program. I want to commend Chairman Frank, Chairwoman Waters, and Congressman Shays for their bipartisan work on this bill. I know that Congressman Shays has worked hard to address some of the concerns raised by HUD and by those on this side of the aisle regarding the bill. Certainly, the manager's amendment moves in the right direction. However, there are still several areas of disagreement on this legislation, such as the elimination of demolition-only grants, implementing one-for-one replacement requirements, and mandating HOPE VI developers comply with the Green Communities Green Building Rating System.

The HOPE VI program has been a program that has worked. Through public-private partnerships, we have changed the physical shape of public housing by establishing positive incentives for resident self- sufficiency and comprehensive services that empower residents. We must take care not to make this program so prescriptive that developers and nonprofits find the program too difficult in which to participate.

Several years ago, I spoke at the opening ceremonies at Orchard Manor in Charleston, West Virginia. Orchard Manor is now a beautiful complex of townhouses, duplexes and apartments that began its transformation from a rundown public housing project with the removal of 230 out of the existing 360 units under a HUD HOPE VI demolition-only grant. Following the initial demolition, additional units were constructed using replacement housing funds until the complex reached its present state. Orchard Manor is a shining example of the importance and significance of using demolition-only grants as part of HOPE VI. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) has an amendment that will reinstate HUD's ability to fund demolition-only grants, and I urge its adoption so future successful projects, such as Orchard Manor, can receive that funding.

Finally, I plan to offer an amendment that I believe is a commonsense approach to green building requirements outlined in this legislation. I am concerned that Congress is attempting to mandate this program. Building green is a good thing. Mandating how to do it by a private building standard, I believe there are other ways to do it, which is essentially the heart of my amendment.

Specifically, the green building requirements in the bill could lead to fewer affordable housing units being built. My amendment still requires minimum green building standards, but it directs the Secretary to select an appropriate green building rating system standard or code that addresses environmental soundness but leaves that flexibility for the Secretary to determine other criteria as appropriate.

We are currently experiencing rapid development in our definition of what constitutes a legitimate ``green building standard'' through the competition of differing ideas. This competition is a healthy one, and we should not cut short through a hasty endorsement of one of the competing proprietary standards as our definition.

In closing, the HOPE VI program is not a cure-all for the rehabilitation and capital improvement needs of public housing units. However, this House has the opportunity with this bill, through several amendments, to further develop a program that rehabilitates our public housing into affordable, mixed-income communities.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to respond just a little bit to the gentleman's comments on the amendment I'm going to put forward. I don't want the misunderstanding of the Members to think that my amendment would remove green building from any of the HOPE VI projects. It's a different philosophy in how we're putting forth the idea to meet green standards. And he clarified that. His is a mandatory. Mine is a flexible, one among many. But I do believe in the philosophy of building more green and more efficient buildings, we've got new technology coming online. Why tie ourselves to a certain standard?

At this point I would like to recognize Mr. Gilchrest for 3 minutes, the gentleman from Maryland.

Madam Chairman, I would now like to yield 9 minutes to the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Bachus of Alabama.

Madam Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who I mentioned in my opening statement had been very integral in reaching what I think is a very good bill, 3 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to recognize the ranking member, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), for 3 minutes.

May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I would like to thank all the speakers for discussing what I think is a good program, HOPE VI. On this side of the aisle, even though the chairmen of the full committee and subcommittee have made great strides in terms of the manager's amendment in terms of answering some of our concerns, but we still have some concerns. And you are going to hear this through the amendment process, whether it's one-on-one replacement, demolition only, and my amendment on the green communities.

So I appreciate HOPE VI's successes. I think we have heard from a lot of Members who have had individual successes in their own districts. I reiterate the success in my district was from a demolition-only grant, and I've seen how the community can benefit and the housing conditions can improve and the quality of life improve at the same time.

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

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the manager's amendment.

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

I would like to thank the chairman and the chairwoman of the subcommittee, Ms. Waters, for reaching across the aisle and working on some of the very serious concerns that we had about the original bill.

I would like to speak specifically about one area, the one-for-one replacement. We have heard a lot of discussion about that on the floor in the beginning arguments. But in this manager's amendment, there is much more flexibility in the one-for-one replacement. It also allows the Secretary to have some flexibility, and I think that means we will have more meaningful housing, housing with more vision on how to improve family and home life.

Another thing is the development timeline. In the original bill, the development timeline was 12 months. I can't imagine myself trying to build large projects such as these and have everything in 12 months. So that deadline was extended to 54 months, which I think was a very good move.

Also on the green building requirements, I have an amendment coming forward to ask for flexibility again in the green building requirements. But in the manager's amendment, some revisions were made, and I think it's moving us a step in the right direction.

I myself support the manager's amendment. I think that a lot of the changes that were made were made in response to what we were hearing in our various offices from not only individuals but various groups their concern for the best way to put forward affordable housing, HOPE VI, and make sure that what we build stands up to the challenges of the future.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield my remaining time to the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Bachus of Alabama.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to the HOPE VI bill, and I would like to talk about first of all what this amendment does not do because my fear is the argument on the other side is going to distort what I really think the core of the discussion between my amendment and those opposed should be.

This amendment in no way is an advocate for destroying or throwing out the window environmental or green building standards. That is not my goal or my intention with this amendment. It retains requirements for green building standards, but it looks at how we build green in a different way.

In the bill presently, there is a mandatory building standard that has been a criteria that has been developed by a proprietary preference for one organization. My amendment would simply move this out of a mandated into the green communities specifically mandated criteria, and move it into a more flexible situation where the Secretary would then choose an appropriate green building standard, green building rating system and code that would address environmental considerations, and leaves flexibility for the Secretary, this Secretary and secretaries to follow, to be able to determine that criteria.

We are going to be building these HOPE VI projects all across this Nation, and I think it is important to note that there should be some geographic considerations for green building standards across the country.

We are also trying to find the best way to use our Federal dollars, to maximize the number of Federal housing units, while still adhering to good environmental standards.

I have listened a lot over the last 60 years to housing projects that have been made, destroyed and rebuilt and why some of them haven't lasted as long as they should. I think by putting this amendment forward, I think I am taking into consideration that what we know today to be a good green building standard and to be in the best interest of an environment or a community or a quality of life in 3 years may be outdated. The technology may not be in front of us now that says if you look at your water this way or your air this way or your environmental considerations for the landscaping, that there is going to be a better way in 3 years.

In this bill, I think we are locking down a certain proprietarily developed standard for green building. I think in selecting appropriate green building criteria, this gives HUD the ability to choose a green building system, a standard or code, in an open, consensus-based way. That is why I put forward this amendment to give HUD the flexibility not only for today but for the future.

Again, I want to reiterate what this amendment does not do. It does not have a goal in mind of undercutting green building in an environmentally stable way to create new HOPE VI projects. Also in this amendment, it also requires the Secretary to conduct a review once every 5 years to determine if the chosen system and standard or code is still relevant, and I think that is appropriate in terms of innovation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman if I left the apartment environmentally stable? I think I did.

I yield 1 minute to my colleague from the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Chairman, I would encourage a ``yes'' vote for my amendment to give the flexibility, to give the innovation and technology that we see every day in green and environmental building standards to move forward so we don't lock down in this bill.

And when the gentleman just briefly says that the LEED standards were removed from the commercial building, yes, they were removed. Why? Because the union of carpenters that we heard about earlier were raising Cain because they were going to have to get their wood from imported wood to be able to meet these standards. That goes right to my point. We need to be reasonable, but we also need to make sure that we protect our environment and move forward with the best communities we can.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 3524, the HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2007. As you know, I introduced H.R. 3524 on September 11 of 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 want to especially thank Chairman Barney Frank, Melvin Watt, and Christopher Shays for their original coauthorship, cosponsorship, and support of H.R. 3524.

In drafting this bill, we worked closely with the minority, resident organizations, housing advocacy groups, public housing agencies, housing developers, bankers, green building experts, and practitioners, and other Members with an interest in the HOPE VI program. The end result is a bill that I believe takes into account the needs of residents, the community, the investors and lenders, and our public housing managers. Most importantly, we have a bill that preserves and revitalizes our public housing stock.

H.R. 3524 reauthorizes and improves the HOPE VI public housing revitalization program by requiring the one-for-one replacement of all demolished public housing units, providing residents with meaningful and substantive involvement in the planning and development of the HOPE VI plan, expanding community and supportive services from 15 percent of grants that amount to 25 percent of grant amount; prohibiting HOPE VI specific screening criteria so that public housing residents and HOPE VI aren't held to a higher standard than non-HOPE VI residents, requiring housing agencies to monitor and track the whereabouts of relocated families, and mandating that developments be built in accordance with green building standards.

Public housing residents, including those not yet impacted by HOPE VI, and housing advocates have said that this bill has been a long time in coming, and I agree with them. I would like to note why the bill before us today is so important.

First, it preserves public housing. The administration eliminated the one-for-one replacement requirement in 1996, effectively triggering a national sloughing off of our Nation's public housing inventory.

Housing authorities have consistently built back fewer units than they have torn down and, as a result, over 30,000 units have been lost as a direct result of the HOPE VI program. Stopping this bleeding was paramount in the drafting of this legislation. One-for-one replacement is not only a part of the bill; it is the heart of this bill. Limiting one-for-one to only occupied units does a disservice to families on waiting lists and to families waiting to get on waiting lists. Public housing is a community resource, and units can be unoccupied because they are not fit for humans to live in. That does not mean that there is no need for them.

Second, because of strict screening criteria, HOPE VI has become limited to the cream of the public housing crop. Some people think that the HOPE VI development represents a new and better community and should have new and better people. However, as a Congress, we must be clear that public housing is for the most in need, not just the easiest to serve.

HOPE VI projects have programs and services that can greatly benefit our neediest families.

In addition, in the drive to separate the wheat from the chaff, public housing agencies have implemented screening criteria that are nothing short of draconian. These criteria include everything from credit checks, home visits, work requirements, and other criteria that many nonpublic housing residents would be unable to meet. We must reject any attempt to continue to punish public housing residents for being poor and must continue to provide them with the tools, through programs like HOPE VI, to assist them in improving their lives.

Lastly, I would like to talk about why green building standards should be mandatory in HOPE VI developments. Our public housing was built poorly and inefficiently. Many of our developments are wasteful and hazardous to the health of the residents, and many investments we make in public housing developments, which will be around for the next 40 years, should ensure that this housing is safe, sound, energy efficient and good for the environment. This is just good public policy. We owe it to our public housing residents and to the environment to make sure that we do not recreate the inefficient and harmful mistakes that went into building many of these developments in the first place.

This bill has the support of over 145 resident organizations: the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the National Housing Law Project, the Community Builders, Bank of America, the Housing Justice Network, the Corporation for Supportive Housing, and others. There are a lot of good things in this bill, and these groups recognize this.

Specifically, regarding the green building provisions, although one group is not supportive, over 30 organizations, including the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the American Public Health Association, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, and others, have voiced their overwhelming support for the green building requirements in the bill.

We have crafted a bill that is good for residents, housing authorities, and communities. I urge you not to be blindsided by threats from third parties and to support our Nation's low-income families and to preserve our housing stock.

Madam Chairman, I would like to say in closing that this should be a bill that receives support from both sides of the aisle. This is the kind of bill that we can truly come together around. Everyone recognizes that it is needed in all communities, rural and urban, suburban, all over the United States.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to Mr. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, hardworking member of our subcommittee, Congressman Sires, 2 minutes.

Madam Chairman, to correct that information, I yield 30 seconds to the chairman, Mr. Frank.

Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) 2 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), a hardworking member of our committee.

Madam Chairman, this would be an excellent time for me to call on the major cosponsor of this bill, someone who has been consistently involved with HOPE VI ever since it was originated.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Mel Watt.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the subcommittee who has never missed a meeting, Congressman Al Green.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wisconsin, who has been so much involved in this issue, Gwen Moore.

I would like to inquire as to how much time I have left, Madam Chairman.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey, Congressman Bill Pascrell.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Danny Davis.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a gentleman who has been very much involved in this issue, Congressman Elijah Cummings.

Madam Chairman, I would like to inquire how much time I have left.

I will yield that 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, Barney Frank, and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Mel Watt for their strong support of the manager's amendment to H.R. 3524.

In the manager's amendment filed before this committee, we worked very hard to address concerns that had been raised by the minority, housing advocates, resident organizations, housing authorities, and others to ensure that we have a bill that is achievable and responsive to the needs of low-income families and communities.

In the manager's amendment we maintain more of our public housing stock by requiring the replacement of any units in existence as of January 1, 2005; provide an extremely limited waiver of the one-for-one requirement in special circumstances, such as a court decree or a severe shortage of land, and impose a penalty on those housing authorities who receive a waiver but fail to meet their obligations under it; allow replacement units to be built outside the jurisdiction of the housing authority in the event the housing authority's jurisdiction is limited in the number of low-poverty areas; extend the timeline for rebuilding from 12 to 54 months; increase resident involvement in decisions surrounding significant changes to HOPE VI plans; exclude green building from total development costs; provide flexibility in nonresidential green development standards; protect grantees affected by cost increases and project delays as a result of the 2005 hurricanes from recapture of their funds; and provide that HOPE VI housing assistance is only for persons who are legally present in the United States.

These changes will greatly improve the bill and build upon the success of the HOPE VI program. Since this program's inception in 1992, we have all watched it at work in our districts and wondered how it could work better. We have all seen families displaced and heard stories about families disappearing into thin air because of these developments. We have seen the units come down and seen a reduced number come back up. We know that HOPE VI can and must do better.

This manager's amendment as well as the underlying bill will go far into making this a program that truly gives hope to low-income families. I urge you to support the manager's amendment and the underlying bill and to remember that this bill is about maintaining housing for our low-income families. They need our support.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman

from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), who spent a lot of time working on this manager's amendment and this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank all of the people that I have identified on this side of the aisle today, plus people I have not identified on the opposite side of the aisle. It has been very enjoyable working with Mrs. Capito, I have appreciated the work of Mr. Shays, and of course my old friend, Mr. Bachus, even though we disagree on some things; and Mr. Neugebauer. We have all come to the conclusion certainly that HOPE VI is a valuable program and that all of our communities can benefit from it.

We have a few different views about one-for-one, we have a few different views about Davis-Bacon maybe, the destruction of units, and the green requirements. But this is one bill that both sides of the aisle understand very thoroughly that America is going to benefit. Mr. Bachus reminded us, even though I know that he understands, that the reason for HOPE VI is to deal with those public housing projects, those developments that were in great disrepair, that needed to be replaced, that needed to be restored, and not just the physical makeup, not just the buildings; but we also understood that what was wrong with our public housing developments was lack of services.

Many of these developments are like little towns, little cities without services. We all know and appreciate they need after-school, they need health care, they need all kinds of support for families, and job development. All of those things we all support, and I would not challenge my Members on the opposite side of the aisle on any of those issues.

I would like to thank them for the tremendous cooperation they have given, and the staffs have worked so well together to resolve a lot of questions to get us to the point that we are today; and while we will go through a few amendments, I feel very, very good that this very, very big and complicated bill has received such wonderful support.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.