Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
SECTION 8 VOUCHER REFORM ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - July 12, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1851, the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007. As you know, I introduced H.R. 1851 on March 29, 2007. I want to thank each of my colleagues, both on the Committee on Financial Services and in the House, who have joined with me to see that this important legislation passes the House. I especially want to thank Chairman BARNEY FRANK for his leadership, Ranking Member JUDY BIGGERT, and CHRISTOPHER SHAYS for their original cosponsorship and support of H.R. 1851.
It has been less than 2 months since the Committee on Financial Services considered major reforms to the section 8 program. The Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007, which passed the Committee on Financial Services by a vote of 52-9, is truly the culmination of work that began in the 109th Congress.
There are many Members of Congress who have expressed major concerns to me about the future stability of the section 8 voucher program, given the recent changes in the funding formula and its impact on tenants. This bill addresses many of those problems and will return much needed stability to the section 8 program and the 2 million low-income families who rely upon it.
We heard from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, public housing agencies, national housing interest groups and advocates, and other housing experts about the importance of reforming the section 8 program. While there is consensus that the section 8 program needed to be reformed, HUD disagrees on how to reform the program.
National housing organizations like the National Low Income Housing Coalition and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities which represent those directly affected by the change in the funding formula agree that basing the funding for a program as important as the voucher program on data that is 3 years old is just simply bad policy.
In 2004, Congress changed how we paid public housing authorities for vouchers under lease. Instead of paying the actual cost of the voucher, the decision was made to pay for what the
[Page: H7727]
voucher cost during a 3-month period in the previous year. This had disastrous consequences for PHAs. Many saw a cut in their funding.
While section 8 recipients had to bear the brunt of this policy change as waiting lists closed, many low-income families who had been waiting for affordable housing for years suddenly found housing denied to them. Because of cost concerns, some families were denied their right to move to areas that may have been a bit more expensive but had better job and educational opportunities. Some families saw an increase in rent as many PHAs scrambled to cut costs.
As families struggled under this formula, so did some of our Nation's largest PHAs. The snapshot funding system had consistently and has consistently underpaid some PHAs to the benefit of others. Because of the funding instability, these PHAs had no reason to house more families. As a result, housing authorities are sitting on $1.4 billion in unspent voucher funds. This nonuse of our voucher dollars is unacceptable because we have lost 150,000 vouchers as a direct result of the funding formula.
Clearly, this formula must be changed for the good of public housing agencies and the families they serve. HUD is just wrong in this issue. I flatly reject their just-released statement of policy on the bill. H.R. 1851 updates the voucher formula by basing funding for vouchers on the previous year's leasing and cost data.
The use of more accurate data will ensure that we stop overpaying and underpaying PHAs for vouchers, but instead come as close as we can to paying the actual cost of the voucher. This will enable HUD to better control costs than the section 8 voucher program. This funding approach was recently embraced by both Houses of Congress in H.J. Res. 20.
Vouchers are a scarce resource, but are even scarcer since the funding formula changed in 2004. Only one out of four families who are eligible for housing assistance, including vouchers, actually receive it. H.R. 1851 provides PHAs with several resources for increasing the number of families they serve.
First, the bill provides for the recapture and redistribution of most unspent voucher funds for housing agencies that have chosen not to use these dollars to PHAs that are capable and willing to spend them. This reallocation system will provide PHAs with an incentive to house more families.
Second, the bill provides tools for PHAs to pay for increased costs or emergencies without having to cut assistance to families or to request new funding from the HUD or the Congress. The bill allows PHAs to retain up to a 1-month reserve in the formula's first year. For those PHAs that need additional funds, the bill allows them to borrow up to 2 percent of their budget authority, to be repaid within the first 3 months of the following year.
Third, the bill provides an authorization of appropriation for 20,000 new incremental vouchers per year for 5 years. Congress has not authorized new vouchers since 2002.
During this period, we all know that the need for voucher assistance has grown, not declined. We are not meeting the need for housing vouchers for very low-income persons in this country, working families, the disabled and elderly. Additional vouchers are needed to make sure that the voucher program continues to keep up with the ever-expanding need for affordable housing in this Nation.
Fourth, the bill provides incentives for PHAs to increase families served by tying administrative funding to the number of families housed.
Fifth, the bill restores housing choice, an important feature of the voucher program which has been lost because of cost concerns. H.R. 1851 would eliminate the complex billing process between PHAs using portable vouchers.
Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that will restore stability and predictability to the Nation's largest
Federal housing program by fixing the broken funding formula. H.R. 1851 provides for the needs of the families, public housing agencies and landlords who participate in this program.
The funding formula, however, is not the only aspect of the section 8 program in need of reform. Today, housing agencies and program recipients must deal with the complicated set of rules for the determination of rent, recertification of income and inspection of housing units. H.R. 1851 simplifies those requirements, while maintaining current affordable standards.
H.R. 1851 also includes tools to encourage voucher families to move to economic self-sufficiency. Families should not have to pay more in rent because they want to work to provide for their families. By disregarding a portion of earned income, H.R. 1851 would protect families from any resultant increases in rent.
Families also shouldn't be penalized for pursuing educational opportunities. Currently, many families in the voucher and public housing programs can find themselves excluded from work and economic opportunities because of a lack of credit history or low credit scores. The bill would allow the Department to work with the Nation's credit bureaus to allow for the reporting of the rental payment history of voucher and public housing recipients.
In addition, the bill will increase homeownership opportunities for voucher families by allowing them to use a section 8 voucher to make a down payment on their first home. Importantly, the bill provides for a change to the funding structure for family self-sufficiency coordinated to ensure that families have the tools to take advantage of these opportunities.
Without going into all of what is taken care of and what is reformed, I have tried to share the major reforms that we have created for our families who will be receiving assistance through the section 8 program.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman and Members, I am so very proud of the work of this committee.
I am so very, very pleased and honored to have the opportunity to work with BARNEY FRANK. Not only is he a committed public policy maker, he is smart, and he is creative. And he is helping us to understand how to use this wonderful opportunity that has been afforded to us to do good for the people of this country.
I am so pleased about this particular bill, because I am so keenly aware of the housing crisis that we have in this country.
As we stand here this evening, there are people who are sleeping under bridges; living with them are families, children. Some of them are veterans. I come from a time and place where people did not have decent housing. I know, too, that not only has this occurred for many years in this country, where people have been living in substandard housing, even today we have people without running water. We have people without proper health facilities of any kind in their homes.
We have families that are crowded into one and two rooms. We have people whose roofs were leaking this evening. But because of this government and our ability to help government understand what it can do to help the least fortunate, we are able to pass this kind of legislation.
I want to thank my friends on the opposite side of the aisle, again, Mrs. Biggert, for the cooperation that I have enjoyed working with her.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this moment to thank someone who is not here in the Congress with us at this time.
When we first started this legislation in the previous Congress, it was with Mr. Bob Ney who served as chair of the subcommittee; I was the ranking member; and we put this bill out on the floor where it passed this House, and he deserves credit for all the work that was done.
I would also like to thank some of the other members who we have not heard from this evening in general debate and hopefully we will hear from a little later on. Mr. Green from Texas who insisted that we expand the vouchers to make them available to the needy families who certainly have been standing in line waiting on section 8 vouchers.
I would like to thank Mr. DAVID SCOTT for being one of the most adamant and fierce defenders of the work that we have done and who has taken on the work of trying to educate some of our Members from the other side of the aisle, not only about the need, but how not to penalize the victims and people who are looking for housing opportunities who would not be able to get them but for section 8 and the work that we are doing.
With that, I would like to close by thanking the chairman who is so committed to helping those who need us most. He is certainly the kind of leader that we can depend on to make sure that everything possible is done, to utilize the time that we have been given in this committee to work for people who oftentimes have been dropped off of America's agenda. Again, he provides strong leadership. He is generous with sharing opportunities with everybody that serves on that committee. And it is because of that kind of leadership and, again, the cooperation from my friends on the opposite side of the aisle, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Miller, Mr. Shays, and others that we come to this floor tonight with a good strong bill that is going to help so very many people in this country, and it is the kind of public policy that makes us all feel very good about being elected officials.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT NO. 1 OFFERED BY MS. WATERS
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 110-227.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
MODIFICATION TO AMENDMENT NO. 1 OFFERED BY MS. WATERS
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified by the form I have placed at the desk.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, Mr. BARNEY FRANK, and Ranking Member JUDY BIGGERT for their strong support of the manager's amendment to H.R. 1851.
The purpose of the amendment is to reform and improve the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007, regarding inspections, flexibility in rent-setting, transitional funding for the Nation's Public Housing Agencies, administrative fee calculations, limited English proficiency requirements, and the Housing Innovation Program. It also makes technical corrections to the bill.
The amendment provides more flexibility to make inspections by requiring them less frequently than every 2 years. This change will allow PHAs in areas with a deteriorating housing stock to conduct additional inspections in order to make sure families are housed in safe and decent units. In addition, the amendment fills the need for inspections that can be conducted at the request of the tenant within a specific amount of time.
My amendment solves a real catch-22 that often arises in the section 8 program. Many section 8 landlords are not large real estate concerns, but mom-and-pop operations that are not getting rich. Where units operated by a landlord fail inspection, right now there is a real danger that the landlord will choose to leave the program rather than make the repairs. This benefits nobody. And there is the catch-22. The landlord wants to stay in the program; the tenant certainly wants to stay in the unit if it can be repaired; but current law makes this positive resolution difficult to achieve.
PHAs will have the option to make repairs on the landlord's behalf. If the PHA or the landlord choose not to make the repair, the amendment protects tenants who will have to move to a new unit through no fault of their own. In the event a PHA chooses not to make a repair and the landlord still declines to repair the unit, the amendment provides important tenant protections.
There is rent flexibility. Sometimes the rigid section 8 rent structure just
[Page: H7748]
doesn't work. In order to find a rent mechanism that works, the amendment gives PHAs flexibility in setting rents. While the calculations may be different, the amendment preserves affordability standards that limit the amount of rent a tenant pays to 30 percent of his or her income. The 30 percent threshold is sacred, because we all know that if the rent exceeds this amount, tenants lose the ability to make ends meet.
When we move to a new funding formula, PHAs will need sufficient reserves to allow them to make the change smoothly and with little disruption for tenants. H.R. 1851 provides a 1-month reserve for the first year of the formula. But to ensure that PHAs are able to serve additional families in the formula's first year, the amendment moderately increases this reserve from the 1-month level to the 1 1/2 -month level. This ensures PHAs will have adequate funds to transition.
The amendment corrects the disparity between the calculation of the administrative fees for project-based units owned by PHAs and other units in the PHA's inventory. Units owned by PHAs would receive the same fee as other units receiving project-based assistance in the PHA's inventory, providing an incentive for PHAs to create housing opportunities by project-basing its own units.
The amendment also addresses HUD's problematic implementation of Limitation of English Proficiency requirements. The manager's amendment seeks to remedy this problem. The amendment calls for HUD to convene a task force of interested parties and stakeholders who will determine the documents that need to be translated, and to make these translations available in various languages within 6 months. HUD is also required to maintain a housing information resource center, including a 24-hour toll-free number and a document clearinghouse.
We also include Housing Innovation Program, that is HIP program, formerly known as Moving to Work, and this amendment makes several corrections to the Housing Innovation Program formerly called Moving to Work. These changes clarify that troubled agencies are not eligible to participate in the program, clarifies resident participation requirements, specifies job opportunities to be made for residents, and ensures that following demolition or replacement of public housing units, that families cannot be screened out of public housing unless they are otherwise ineligible under Federal law.
I ask support for the manager's amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I ask for support for the manager's amendment to H.R. 1851 and passage of the bill. Again, I want to thank each of my colleagues who worked on this important amendment for their strong support.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source