Statement of the Honorable Judy Biggert
House Floor Consideration of Rule for
H.R. 1227, Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007
March 20, 2007
Madam Speaker, while I am grateful that this rule made in order one of my amendments to H.R. 1227, I rise today in opposition to this modified closed rule because my other amendment, a very important amendment, was not made in order.
My second amendment would have struck Section 302 of H.R. 1227 and inserted a new section at the end of the bill, resetting the Section 8 funding formula to its pre-continuing resolution state. The amendment would require HUD to distribute Section 8 funds to public housing authorities for the remainder of the 2007 calendar year as they were distributed before enactment of the continuing resolution just last month.
The Section 8 funding formula change that was included in the CR was not well thought-out. One doesn’t need to look very far for evidence of this fact. Under the funding formula change that was included in the CR, all of the Gulf Coast PHAs lose funding, and the budget of the New Orleans PHA alone drops from $73 million to $3 million in 2007 and then permanently from there on.
The bill before us today fixes this problem for the Gulf Coast and New Orleans PHAs, but not for the rest of the country. I guess they realized that they’ve made a mistake in that area, but let’s just leave the other PHAs in trouble. Half the PHAs in the country – over 1,200 public housing authorities in 29 states – remain in trouble.
Because of the Section 8 funding formula change in the CR, PHAs in half of our nation’s communities will not be able to serve many of our neediest citizens. Very soon, HUD will issue a notice that informs PHAs that if they haven’t spent their “unspent balances” by a date certain, they lose these funds. If a person is walking the streets with a voucher and hasn’t found a place to rent, he or she loses the voucher because these “unspent funds” will be recaptured by HUD. It was wrong to change the funding formula mid-year, when PHAs had already set budgets for this year.
My amendment would have corrected this problem by telling HUD to distribute Section 8 funds to PHAs for the remainder of the 2007 calendar year as they were distributed to PHAs before enactment of the CR.
Unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues on the Rules Committee voted against making my amendment in order, and against restoring much-needed funds to many of the nation’s PHAs. And they did so in full knowledge that PHAs in their own congressional districts would benefit from my amendment.
All three counties in my district lose funding under the formula change in the CR, but at least I attempted to do something about it and didn’t consciously vote against fixing the problem.
We also will continue to try to fix the problem caused by the Section 8 formula included in the CR. As the Ranking Member on the Housing Subcommittee, I will continue to work with my colleague, Chairwoman Maxine Waters, to craft a bipartisan Section 8 reform bill in the Financial Services Committee, which is the appropriate place to address any changes to the funding formula -- not in an appropriations bill such as the recently enacted CR.
I recognize that the minority party may not be able to stop this rule from going forward, Madam Speaker. But I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to seriously consider voting against this rule. While the bill prevents PHAs in the Gulf Coast from being harmed by the formula in the CR, this rule does nothing to help PHAs nationwide that are in the same predicament.
Again, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I yield back.
|