Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to be here debating this bill to help public housing authorities across this Nation. Let me start by thanking Chairman Barney Frank for his support on this bill and his leadership in the committee. Let me…
Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to be here debating this bill to help public housing authorities across
this Nation. Let me start by thanking Chairman Barney Frank for his support on this bill and his leadership in the committee.
Let me start by explaining why I introduced this bill. Shortly after I was sworn in, I received a letter from the Jersey City Housing Authority in my district. They told me they had laid off 34 employees because of asset management. When I looked into this, I learned that Jersey City was not unique. Over 800 public housing authorities had their operating budgets cut because of the way asset management was implemented by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. At the same time, the Department limited the amount of flexibility given to public housing authorities to make ends meet.
I knew something had to be done. With the support of Chairman Frank, Chairwoman Waters, and others, I introduced H.R. 3521, the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 2007. You will note that the title indicates that the bill improves asset management. It does not, and I repeat, it does not put an end to asset management. That is because I feel strongly that the goals of the asset management are worthwhile. By making public housing authorities run more efficiently, asset management has the potential to improve the lives of all those who live in public housing in this country.
My bill simply makes four improvements to the asset management rule. First, it requires renewed negotiations over the management fee. A little background in this is probably helpful. In 1998, Congress passed the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998, which called on the Department to replace the old funding system with a new, more efficient system. In 2004, a negotiated rulemaking committee gathered to decide how to implement this new system known as asset management. One key piece was the management fee, and Congress required that the fee be reasonable. The negotiators never discussed the management fee, and industry groups have argued that it was set arbitrarily by the Department in its final rule because it lacked input from the negotiated rulemaking committee. My bill requires new negotiations to establish a reasonable fee and allows public housing authorities to revert back to their old funding mechanism until final implementation of asset management on January 1, 2011.
Second, my bill reaffirms current law by allowing public housing authorities to transfer funds between their operating fund and their capital fund. This provision prevents the Department from prohibiting such transfers. This flexibility is vital to agencies, particularly since the public housing program is underfunded. Housing authorities know best where they need funding, not Washington. There is wide agreement on this provision. In fact, this provision was included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008. That provision, however, is only valid for 1 year. My bill would make the change permanent.
Third, my bill increases the exemption threshold from small to medium-sized public housing authorities. The Department recognized that small authorities with fewer than 250 units of housing would not benefit from the efficiencies of asset management. The final rule exempts public housing authorities with fewer than 250 units of housing from implementing asset management. My bill simply raises this threshold to 500 units. Again, there is little disagreement on raising the threshold. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 raised the exemption threshold to 400. My bill goes a little further to 500 units. The impact of this change will only affect 441 public housing authorities, some of whom may not opt out of asset management because they think it makes good sense. Even with this change, over two-thirds of all public housing units still will be covered by asset management rules.
Finally, my bill restates current law in terms of tenant participation. It simply says that tenants should be allowed to participate in the decisions affecting their homes. It prohibits the Department from altering tenant participation rights, and it encourages public housing authorities to include tenants in discussion about asset management that directly affects their home.
Let me end by talking about who supports this bill. We have received letters of support from the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association, the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, and the National Training and Information Center.
I submit these letters for the Record.
National Training
and Information Center,
Chicago, IL, February 7, 2008.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: The undersigned 150 democratic
grassroots resident organizing groups and allies would like
to convey our strong support for protecting the rights of
public housing residents to organize, as delineated in H.R.
3521, the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of
2007. As the transition to a system of asset management is
one of the most significant shifts facing the administration
of public housing in many years, it is more important than
ever that public housing residents are involved in the
decision-making processes at the local and national levels.
In April of 2007, the National Training & Information
Center (NTIC) submitted a letter to Congress endorsed by
local, statewide, and national organizations in protest of
recent attempts to undermine the efforts of resident and
community organizations to participate in the decisions
around public housing that impact their communities and their
lives, One of those attempts was a notice by HUD on March 1,
2007 to streamline the process to waive 24 CFR 964, which
outlines the rights of residents to organize, for PHAs
transitioning to asset management. Section 4 of H.R. 3521 is
critical in order to ensure that the congressionally
sanctioned rights to organize for public housing residents
are protected.
The NTIC network is of the perspective that residents must
be central to the discourse around policies that impact
them--both at the local and national level. Section 4 of this
bill will ensure that the voices of public housing residents
are not lost in the implementation of asset management. Over
the past year, NTIC has brought together public housing
residents and allies from 38 cities to identify the most
pressing areas for reform of public housing policy. The right
to organize and meaningful resident participation are among
the highest priorities for residents across the country. In
order to make asset management work for everyone, it is
critical that residents are involved in decisions around its
implementation.
The undersigned 150 local, statewide, and national
organizations would like to convey our support for the
principles outlined in Section 4 of H.R. 3521. Namely, we
feel strongly that residents should have a right to organize
in public housing and should be meaningfully and
substantively involved in the decisions that impact their
lives--both at the local and national level. Specifically, it
is critical that the rights bestowed by 24 CFR 964 not be
undermined by the transition to asset management. We hope
that we can rely on your support for these principles.
Thank you for listening to the voices of the people!
Signed,
Access Living--Chicago, IL.
Annapolis Tenant Task Force--Boston, MA.
Beacon Glen Resident Association--Cincinnati, OH.
Bethel New Life--Chicago, IL.
Bethune Village Resident Council--Daytona Beach, FL.
Border Fair Housing & Economic Justice Center--El Paso, TX.
Bowen Homes Resident Association--Atlanta, GA.
Cabrini Green Rowhouse Council--Chicago, IL.
California Coalition for Rural Housing--California State
Center for Community Change--National
Central Advisory Council--Chicago, IL.
Central Illinois Organizing Project--Central Illinois
Chicago Coalition for the Homeless--Chicago, IL.
Chicago Rehab Network--Chicago, IL.
Cleveland Housing Resident Association--Cleveland, TN.
Clinton Springs Resident Association--Cincinnati, OH.
Coalition to Protect Public Housing--Chicago, IL.
Communities United for Action--Cincinnati, OH.
Community Voices Heard--New York, NY.
Connecticut Legal Services--Connecticut State
Consumer Action--National
Crossroads Urban Center--Salt Lake City, UT.
Detroit United Organizing for Power--Detroit, MI.
District of Columbia Grassroots Empowerment Project--
Washington, DC.
Empower DC--Washington, DC.
Empowering & Strengthening Ohio's People--Cleveland, OH.
Erie Tenant Council--Erie, PA.
Everywhere & Now Public Housing Residents Organizing
Nationally Together--National
Fall River Housing Joint Tenants Council Inc.--Fall River,
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. Chairman, just in closing I would like to say that there is oversight, and the 20 percent that we are talking about is just increasing 10 percent because already they have the ability to move 10 percent. With all of the costs, all of the increases and the underfunding of these housing authorities, I think this is reasonable.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, I offer an amendment.
This manager's amendment covers two different aspects of the bill. The first part addresses compliance with section 2 of the bill. Section 2 grants agencies that lost funding because of asset management to walk out of the funding agreement. The bill allows them to set their own reasonable management fee until a new negotiated rulemaking takes place. However, the Department recently announced that any agency compliant with this provision of the bill will be deemed as noncompliant with the Asset Management Final Rule. The manager's amendment makes it clear that these agencies are compliant.
The second part of the manager's amendment restates current law that undocumented immigrants are ineligible for financial assistance under section 214 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1980. These changes are technical and should be adopted.
Chairman Frank and I urge a ``yes'' vote on these amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
I would like to thank Mr. Meek for offering this amendment.
This amendment clarifies that the Department cannot prevent public housing authorities in receivership from benefiting from this bill.
Chairman Frank and I fully support this amendment, and we urge adoption.
Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
Madam Speaker, I make a point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill. The bill H.R. 3773 has nothing to do with the asset management bill under consideration.
Madam Speaker, the gentleman is not speaking on the point of order.
Madam Speaker, I insist on my point of order.
Madam Speaker, I move to table the appeal.
Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.