Date: 2007-07-12
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of H.R. 1851. the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act. This is. something we have been working on for years. and I am pleased we have it to this point today. I commend Chairman FRANK. BARNEY. yOU have been great to work with on these issues. When we express concerns. he is always willing to look at policy rather than politics. We have arrived at a bill we can all look at and say. there are things we might change. but overall. we all agree it is a good bill. I would like to commend Ranking Member BACHUS for all of his help and assistance. Chairman WATERS. it has been fun workinge with you on this issue. as well as Ranking Member BIGGERT. Working together in a bipartisan manner. we have produced a bill that will help the section 8 program better serve families and communities across the country. Over the years. Congress has grappled with the skyrocketing cost of the section 8 program. which is growing so rapidly that HUDs other programs are suffering as a result. It is not feasible for the Federal Government to continue increasing funds for a program without enacting meaningful reforms. In the 109th Congress. I introduced legislation to. improve the delivery of housing assistance to families in need by providing flexibility to local public housing authorities. PHAs. and holding them accountable for results. The goal of my legislation was to ensure that PHAs would serve as many families as possible within their budget. While the bill before us today does not go as far as my proposal in injecting flexibility to PHAs in their administration of the entire section 8 program. H.R. 1851 does make a number of improvements to the section 8 program to reform the simplified regulations for local housing agencies. I appreciate Chairman FRANKS willingness to work with me to allow for PHA innovation on .a scale he is more comfortable with. While the bill before us does not apply flexibility to the entire program. I am pleased it at least allows a permanency and expansion of the Moving To Work program. renamed in this bill as the Housing Innovation Program. HIP. The Moving to Work Program has allowed a small group of PHAs to create locally based housing programs outside of HUDs onesizefitsall regulations. The program has enabled PHAs to create jobs for residents. add affordable housing stock and help families build savinlgs. Currently. over 24 of the more than 3.000 PHAs nationwide are participating in the Moving to Work program. H.R. 1851 provides access to more agencies nationwide seeking MTW status. Through the new HIP program. we will be able to take away "best practices" to apply to the entire section 8 program in the future. I amconfident that the innovation that will be produced throughthe flexibility provided in the HIP will demonstrate ways to truly reform section 8 so we can serve more families efficiently and help move them to selfsufficiency. The managers amendment. which will be debated later this evening. includes language I crafted to provide PHAs with the flexibility to establish rent structures as they see best to address the needs of their communities. The language gives PHAs the flexibility to select from a menu of tenant rent policies. including flat rent. rents based on income ranges. rents based on percentage of income. or other innovative rent policies. HUD and many PHAs agree that the current Federal approach to tenant rent contribution is a regressive system that penalizes residents by charging higher rents for those who gain employment and income. If a section 8 recipients salary increases. so does their rent. This creates a disincentive for work. Our goal should be to provide a helping hand to those who need it but also ensure that they are on a path to selfsufficiency. Rather than providing incentives for work. the current section 8 program provides incentives for people to lie about their income or to reject opportunities to increase their income since they would be forced to pay more rent. I dont think this is a message we should be sending in this program. We should be instilling responsibility and desire to achieve in our housing assistance policy. not encouraging dishonesty and creating disincentives for success. I am pleased the chairman has worked with me on language to allow PHAs the option of setting rents in innovative ways to help families achieve selfsufficiency. The reality is that we face a situation of growing waiting lists for section 8 vouchers without the resources to serve everyone. The answer is not to merely throw more money into an existing regressive system in a depart ment where there are other pressing �needs that need to be met. We need to move current section 8 recipients to selfsufficiency by allowing PHAs to be innovative with the money they do have. to be efficient and help as many people in need move through the program as possible. While this bill does not go as far as I think we need it to go in terms of allowing flexibility. I believe it is a step in the right direction and will make needed improvements to the section 8 program. I look forward to the debate on the amendments tonight as I believe we can continue to improve the legislation as we move forward. I would like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman. the gentleman from Massachusetts . There seems to be a misunderstanding on the part of HUD. Mr. FRANK. this bill includes a revision and expansion of the Moving to Work Program. MTW. renamed the Housing Innovation Program. HIP. Under the program authority of HIP. the Secretary may designate up to 60 public housing agencies to fully participate in -the program. and an additional 20 public housing agencies may participate in the program under what is called the HIPLite provisions. Under the current MTW program. authorization has been granted for 32 public housing authorities to participate in the program. However. HUD narrowly defined the legislative authority under which they could solicit new applications. HUD decided that once PHAs leave the program. no new agencies can be selected to fill their vacancy. The result is. out of 32 authorized. only 24 agencies are currently in the program. I would like to confirm that the intent of this bill is to allow HUD to solicit new applications in order to maintain the program at its fully authorized level and to give PHAs the opportunity to fill any vacancies. I would like to confirm that you agree that the secretary of HUD should promptly solicit new applications from PHAs interested in participating in the HIP program whenever the number of agencies is less than the total authorized level. and that would be 60 under this bill. is that correct. sir?