Date: 2000-04-06
Speaker: GARY MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Madam Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman. I have worked with the chairman and the gentleman from New York . and have worked on a compromise to include my amendment in H.R. 1776. I would like to thank the chairman for his assistance in this. Lowincome housing tenants often become the victims of crime and drug operations. Oftentimes lax management and oversight give way to blight. As drug use and drugrelated crimes rose alarmingly in the 1980s. Congress responded by authorizing the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program in Historically. local housing authorities applied for these funds when HUD issued a notice of funds availability. and housing authorities competed with one another for the available funding. This is no longer the case. Instead. in 1999. the competitive application process was changed to a formula funding program. This new criteria for Public Housing Drug Elimination Program funds favor those agencies with severe problems in both public housing and in the community. As a result. housing authorities in communities that run good public housing programs and have established successful drug prevention programs with these program funds are no longer eligible to receive funding under this program. HUD has pulled the rug from beneath the feet of all the programs that are successful. My amendment will modify the "eligible local housing authority" definition for the HUD Drug Elimination Program grants to continue support for projects that are meeting their goals. Local housing authorities that can show evidence through local efforts between the housing authority and the police department that they are eliminating drugs and crime problems in their public housing will remain eligible. However. instead of encouraging success. we are currently promoting failure. The city of Upland. California. Upland is a perfect example. Upland was one of many housing authorities which faced severe drug and crime problems. However. they chose to take control and started a program. with the full support of the Upland police department in 1980. Today Upland has one of the lowest crime rates in public housing in the country. In 1997 and 1998. Uplands police department handled 27.000 cases. Of those cases in those 2 years. only 31 cases occurred in the housing authority. That is a tremendous improvement over what it was prior to their becoming proactive in trying to eliminate the problem. Now the city is facing financial difficulties. and it is becoming increasingly difficult for the police department to give the program the same level of service it has in the past. Under HUDs definition. they are no longer eligible to compete for the funds they used to receive for the program to fight drugs simply because they have done a great job. I applaud the city of Upland for this tremendous achievement. but it is not the only success story now that is now on the verge of failure. Every Member of Congress is faced with the same challenge in their district. and we cannot leave them in the cold. In conclusion. this is a simple case of HUD rewarding housing authorities for doing a bad job. and punishing those who have worked hard to reduce or eliminate the drug problem in their communities. These successful communities should be able to continue their programs using the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program funds. If they are unable to continue the drug prevention efforts. the problem will return. Would we only allow a doctor to give enough medicine to reduce the -illness. or would we give enough medicine to cure the disease? I would like to thank the chairman. the gentleman from New York . for his help in working on this bill. Madam Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.