Summary:
All articles in House section
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996
(House of Representatives - July 27, 1995)
Text of this article available as:
[Pages H7820-H7913]
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 201 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2099.
{time} 1211
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
2099) making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and
Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies,
boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, with Mr. Combest in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] will each be recognized for 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, colleagues, I am pleased to present H.R. 2099--the VA,
HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill for fiscal 1996. Let
me get right to the bottom line. This bill, as it now stands, provides
$60.045 in discretionary budget authority and $19.361 billion for
mandatory accounts. This represents an overall reduction of $10.006
billion--or minus 14.3 percent--in domestic discretionary authority
from last year's levels. It is $10.482 billion less than President
Clinton requested for the 22 agencies, boards, and commissions that
fall within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.
Following directly from our recent success in the rescissions
package, this bill represents the urgent need to put Uncle Sam on a
diet. We are doing what many said could never be done. We are making
the tough decisions required to balance the Federal budget in 7 years.
The bill reflects real cuts in each and every agency, except the VA's
medical care account. These cuts, in this bill, at this time, are
absolutely required if we are to keep our commitment to the American
people regarding changing the way their Government in Washington
operates with their hard earned tax dollars. We do not have the luxury
of postponing these decisions to the outyears. We have tightened Uncle
Sam's belt a notch or two, but this is the beginning, not the end, of
identifying real savings.
At this point, I want to move away from the numbers for just a moment
in order to share a few observations about the many people who have
made it possible for the subcommittee to bring this bill to the floor
today. I know that you will understand when I say this--the
chairmanship of the VA-HUD subcommittee is not a lonely job. The
Members should know how fortunate I feel to be working so directly with
Mr. Stokes of Ohio who chaired the subcommittee in the 103d Congress.
Mr. Stokes is much more than a friend. Time and again, he has been
someone on whom I can absolutely count when it comes to understanding
the impact of the fundamental changes which we are making. The
gentleman from Ohio never stops listening or working with me regardless
of how much he may disagree with the substance of any matter under
negotiation. And we appreciate the help we get from his able staff--
particularly Leslie Atkinson and Del Davis.
Throughout our hearings this year as the subcommittee developed the
bill, I encountered reactions ranging from amazement to amusement among
our subcommittee's 11 other members. But I have always known that I
could count on each and every one of those members to work with me to
improve the direction, substance, and purpose of this bill. Indeed, it
is a very special privilege to work on such a close basis with all who
serve on the VA-HUD subcommittee. To a person, they are men and women
of uncommon
intelligence and conviction. This bill reflects their bipartisan
participation and cooperation.
Last, I want to say how much I value and appreciate the work of the
staff. With the exception of Paul Thomson who has long worked with us
on appropriations matters, ours is a brand new
[[Page H 7821]]
partnership. The work of the staff--beginning with our staff director
Frank Cushing and including Jon Gauthier, Tim Peterson, and Todd Weber
has been first rate. Their attention to detail has been nothing short
of essential and I just want each and every one of them to know of our
appreciation.
In keeping with the Speaker's guidance, the subcommittee has made
every effort to work with all of the committees of jurisdiction that
authorize the various programs affected by this bill. Though there will
be continuing controversy over the numerous housing and environmental
administrative provisions contained in this bill, the membership should
know that we have worked diligently at both the member and staff level
to develop the language with the knowledge and expertise of the various
chairs in the Commerce, Transportation and Infrastructure, Veterans,
Banking, Judiciary, Science, and Agriculture Committees.
When we have completed general debate, I will offer an amendment that
increases the total dollars already provided for VA medical care, VA
health professional scholarships, special needs
housing, homeless assistance, and FHA multifamily credit subsidies.
This amendment culminates the prolonged negotiations which we have had
with our leadership and many of our authorizing partners. I share their
desire to see much less legislation in this bill next year and I hope
the coalitions which we have formed in working together this year will
be lasting ones.
Let me move now to summarizing just a few of the many difficult
choices and positive highlights that make up this complex piece of
legislation.
difficult choices
Four agencies are terminated for a savings of $703 million in
discretionary authority from 1995 enacted levels: The Corporation for
National and Community Service, Community Development Financial
Institutions, the Chemical Safety and Hazards Investigation Board, and
the Council on Environmental Quality. It's possible that we may get an
amendment contemplating the elimination of yet another--the Selective
Service System.
The bill does not provide requested funding for the construction of
two additional VA hospitals in Florida and California which would have
resulted in major construction costs of $343.2 million this year. We
hope to continue working with Members from the affected regions to
provide state of the art outpatient facilities that are consistent with
the direction that Veterans
Secretary Jesse Brown suggested last year when the VA was
participating in the national health care reform debate.
NASA, too, will make a major contribution to deficit reduction. Their
budget has been reduced by $705 million from last year's level. And we
have gone much farther than I think Administrator Goldin would be
comfortable with. This bill begins the process of reducing the size of
NASA's plate. It makes real and painful program changes which will
reduce fiscal year 1996 and outyear pressures. Two major NASA programs,
the Space Infrared Telescope Facility and EOS will be substantially
altered in order to help reduce the pressures on the overall bill.
This bill provides $4.88 billion for the EPA--a reduction of $2.4
billion or 33 percent from the fiscal year 1995 level. Frankly, our
bill is an urgent plea to Administrator Browner. If you believe that
Superfund is broken, help us fix it. If you believe that command and
control is the wrong approach, act now to make EPA a facilitator of
progressive environmental policy rather than an enforcer of excessive
and inflexible Federal mandates. If you believe that EPA should base
decisions on proven sound science, risk assessment, and thorough cost-
benefit analysis, by all means join with us in perfecting this bill.
The EPA is a regulatory agency completely out of control, an agency
that until now has delighted in routinely redefining its mission
without proper
congressonal oversight. The legislative provisions in this bill
reflect the need and desire to restore some common sense and
flexibility to the challenges of environmental protection in our
country. The EPA should be a facilitator of progressive environmental
policy rather than an enforcer of excessive and inflexible Federal
mandates.
With regard to Superfund, I understand that my colleague from Ohio,
Mr. Oxley, the chairman of the authorizing Commerce Subcommittee, is
set to move a reauthorization bill this fall. It is my hope that
Administrator Browner will work with the authorizing committee in
addressing the difficulties of this task. The issuance and funding of
new records of decision [RODS] by potentially responsible parties is
one area that should be analyzed during the reauthorization process.
Emphasizing the positives
The subcommittee has provided a funding level of $38.1 billion for
the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA stands alone among the
agencies in our jurisdiction. It's funding is not significantly
reduced. Every requested dollar for mandatory spending is provided. If
my conforming amendment is adopted in a few moments, an increase of
$562 million will be provided for medical care--over and above last
year's funding level of $16.2 billion.
We have also taken great care to provide every available dollar for
the basic research mission of the National Science Foundation. NSF
would receive $3.1 billion in this bill--a reduction of 6.5 percent or
$200 million from last year's level.
The subcommittee's overall funding level for HUD, if my manager's
amendment is adopted, would be $19.4 billion. The mark recognizes that
two of HUD's largest and most cost effective programs--community
development block grants--$4.6 billion--and the home investments
partnership program--$1.4 billion--are working largely as intended.
Neither program will absorb reduction's from last year's level.
The subcommittee has been mindful of the guidance from those who
receive HUD dollars--nonprofits, local public housing authorities, and
resident groups--that reductions in their funding should not proceed
this year absent substantial legislative reform that maximizes
flexibility in how they administer Federal housing dollars. And, even
though HUD's comprehensive reform bill is far from final action in the
authorizing process, we have provided $862 million for a section 8
replacement assistance fund.
In all of these matters, I have had the privilege of working with Mr.
Lazio--the chairman of the Banking Subcommittee on Housing. He has
reminded me more than once that there is great need for thoughtfulness
when one wields the machete. Numbers drive policy. Policy drives
perception. And before we know it, we can have real change in the
broken delivery mechanism that we all know as HUD.
The section 8 replacement assistance funds will provide for nearly
77,000 units of tenant based housing, thus allowing the Secretary to
proceed with two of his most important initiatives--tearing down the
worst of the low vacancy high rises in public housing and targeting
assistance to individuals rather than properties. These vouchers will
be available to anyone who loses their unit if these long overdue
changes are undertaken by the Secretary. No one will be thrown out on
the street and many of the individuals who could receive assistance
under this fund will be in decent housing for the first time in years.
Mr. Speaker, these are the challenges and highlights presented with
the fiscal year 1996 VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations
bill. I hope that the members will see fit to accept the difficult
tradeoffs reflected here. I urge you to support the bill when we get to
final passage.
{time} 1215
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2099, the fiscal
year 1996 appropriations bill for Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban
Development, and independent agencies. As a member of this subcommittee
for more than 20 years, it is a difficult position for me today to
stand here in opposition to this measure.
Let me first acknowledge and recognize the work and leadership of our
chairman and colleague from California, Jerry Lewis. No one knows
better than I, having previously served as chairman of this
subcommittee, the complexities of this bill. As it stands, we must
provide funding for critical
[[Page H 7822]]
veterans, housing, environmental, science, and research and development
programs. The increasing Federal deficit and call for Government reform
has heightened the problems of meeting these essential needs. So
Chairman Lewis' task has not been an easy one.
Nonetheless, within the allocation that this subcommittee received,
we have considerable opportunity to try and meet the basic and pressing
priorities upon which veterans, the elderly, and low-income and working
Americans depend. Unfortunately, instead, the subcommittee launches a
wholesale assault on these individuals and those critical programs that
provide safety net and human service programs, not to mention programs
that are
designed to ensure a safer and cleaner environment for our children
and our communities.
Now we have heard our colleagues on the other side represent this
bill as fair, given the adverse allocation of the subcommittee. But I
don't think that our veterans, our elderly, our children, and our poor
would agree. In fact, the President does not agree and has already
indicated that he will veto this bill if it is presented to him in its
present form. In his statement on H.R. 2099, the President says and I
quote:
The fiscal year 1996 VA/HUD appropriations bill passed by
the House Appropriations Committee is unacceptable. I call on
the Congress to correct the appropriations bills now under
consideration before they reach my desk, not after.
Let me take a moment to explain to you why this bill is so
unacceptable to the President and those of us who care about people.
For our veterans, this bill reduces by nearly $1 billion the level of
spending that the President has requested for veterans including
medical care, general expenses, and construction projects. These cuts
seem especially callous. Certainly, individuals who have given the
ultimate sacrifice and risked their lives for our collective safety and
well
being deserve to have the full level of security for themselves and
their families to live out the rest of their lives.
In a letter circulated yesterday to all Members of the House James J.
Kenney, executive director of AMVETS stated:
The designated appropriations still falls well short of the
funding necessary to even maintain the current level of
earned entitlements for our veterans.
Further he says:
The proposed budget will require painful decisions on the
elimination of critical services.
The bill falls short in the areas of medical care--almost $200
million below the President's budget request, in construction--where
critical facilities are needed for a growing and aging veterans
population, in benefits servicing--where a cut to the VA Benefits
Administration would impact the first line of support veterans receive
when they approach the VA through the vocational rehabilitation
counselling and the veterans services divisions.
This bill, once again, targets housing programs as we saw earlier
this year in the rescissions bill. On top of the $7 billion taken from
HUD in the 1995 rescissions, this measure cuts $5.3 billion from the
President's request. The severity of the reductions are appalling
enough seeing that $4.2 billion of the cuts to HUD came from housing
programs
alone. Hardest hit are those programs that provide affordable and
decent housing for the elderly and poor, like section 8 incremental
rental assistance and public housing operating and modernization funds.
But our colleagues on the other side did not stop here. Added to
these crushing reductions are pages of extensive legislation that is
tantamount to repealing the statutory goal of decent, safe, and
sanitary housing for all Americans. Minimum rents are set and residents
who only average $8,000 a year in income are forced to pay more in
terms of their rent contributions.
At a time when affordable housing is at a record short supply, this
bill would not only gut affordable and low-income housing but cut
homeless assistance grants by $400 million. Secretary Henry Cisneros
has stated that while the committee sees savings in these actions, he
sees a terrible pain for the most economically vulnerable working
people. Several colleagues and I will be offering amendments to try and
correct these harmful actions.
When they finished with destroying our investment in public and low-
income housing, our colleagues decided to set back this Nation's
efforts to ensure that each American breathe clean air, drink clean
water, and be safe from hazardous waste dangers. This devastation is
accomplished
through a cut in funding to programs like the Superfund Program, the
Safe Drinking Water Revolving Fund, the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund, and EPA operating programs. The public health is further
jeopardized by the nearly 20 limitations and riders that further these
pernicious acts. I will be offering, with my colleague on the other
side, Congressman Sherry Boehlert, an amendment to strike these riders
from the bill.
The list of egregious actions in H.R. 2099 unfortunately continues.
The Corporation for National and Community Service [AmeriCorps] and the
Community Development Financial Institutions Program are terminated.
The bill also calls for the close out of the Council on Environmental
Quality within the Executive Office of the President.
Our Nation's critical investment in science and technology has also
been reduced through the 5-percent cut in NASA and the 6-percent cut in
the National Science Foundation.
The reductions in this bill are severe and reason enough for not
supporting this legislation. What is even worse is that the cuts are
being made in part to finance a tax break for the most wealthy. These
actions are penny wise and pound foolish and I therefore strongly
oppose this bill.
{time} 1230
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg], a member of the committee.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
bill.
I would like to begin by commending the gentleman from California,
Chairman Lewis, for all of his hard work. Shepherding an appropriations
bill through the legislative process is no easy task, yet he has done
it with skill and flair. I would also like to thank the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
And finally, we all owe a debt of gratitude to the subcommittee
staff--Frank Cushing, Paul Thomson, Tim Peterson, John Gauthier and
Todd Weber. We truly would not be here today if it weren't for their
tireless efforts.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It does not simply spread the pain
throughout all of the programs in its jurisdiction, it makes the tough
choices necessary to move up toward a balanced budget. Overall, it cuts
about $10 billion in spending from last year's level. But it also
preserves funding for programs which work well and are important to the
Nation's future.
Now, we are going to hear a lot of heated rhetoric about
disproportionate cuts in housing programs. But do not let that get in
the way of the facts. Yes, next year housing programs will have to
absorb some spending reductions--there is no doubt about it.
But when compared to the other agencies in this bill, HUD's funding
actually will take up a larger share of the outlays than they did this
year. In short, HUD will enjoy a slightly larger piece of a smaller
pie. And in the present budgetary environment, that is nothing to
complain about.
Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of good in this bill. VA medical care
has been protected, as has funding for university-based scientific
research. We preserve funding for NASA's core missions; and we send EPA
a strong message that they must move away from their current Soviet-
style, command and control system of regulation.
I am sure that every Member of this body, given the chance, would
draft a VA-HUD bill that is different from the legislation before us.
But, to use an often-heard quote, we can't let the perfect be the enemy
of the good.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 11/2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
[[Page H 7823]]
(Mr. GONZALEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues in expressing my
strong opposition to the mean spirited and draconian HUD-VA
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. If this bill is enacted, we
are signaling almost a full retreat by the Federal Government as a
critical partner in affordable housing and community revitalization.
H.R. 2099 slashes one-quarter of the budget for the Department of
Housing and Urban Development. It neither expands, nor preserves, nor
rehabilitates public and assisted housing and then requires poor
families to pay more for deteriorating housing, or go homeless.
I find it ironic that on Monday the Center for Budget and Policy
Priorities released its new study, ``In Short Supply: The Growing
Affordable Housing Gap,'' which determined that the number of low-
income renters exceeded the number of affordable rental units by 4.7
million low-income renters. This Nation has lost 43 percent of its
affordable housing supply, some 2.2 million housing units, over the
last two decades, according to the study.
If we pass this appropriations bill, we virtually ensure that
affordable housing will continue to decrease and deteriorate; we will
lose our $90 billion investment in public housing; and hundreds of
thousands more families will become or remain homeless. Despite what
our colleagues on the majority and on the Appropriations Committee
contend, these are not hard decisions, they are heartless.
Public housing residents in the more than 3,400 local housing
authorities throughout the Nation are at risk of seeing their everyday
maintenance requests go unanswered for lack of operating subsidies.
This appropriations bill funds operating subsidies at only $2.5
billion, some $400 million below this year's funding and only 85
percent of what housing authorities need to operate their housing
authorities.
And the eyesores of deteriorated and dilapidated housing in many of
our urban centers will remain vacant and crumbling, further destroying
neighborhoods because nearly one-third of the modernization funds and
all of the urban revitalization grants for severely distressed public
housing projects will be lost if this bill passes.
There will be no new public housing funded and no new section 8
certificates available for the first time in 20 years even though there
are more than 5.6 million families today who pay more than 50 percent
of their incomes for rent, or who live in substandard housing. There
are more than 1.5 million families on public housing and section 8
waiting lists throughout this country. The number of families who are
homeless or who pay exorbitant rents or who live in terrible housing
conditions grows each year by more than 10 times the number of new
families that would be assisted under the appropriation bills for 1996.
During this fiscal year 88,400 units of affordable housing were
financed through the various Federal housing programs--next year fewer
than 15,000 units.
Frail elderly residents of public and assisted housing will not
receive critical supportive services like personal care,
transportation, and congregate dining, hastening the entry into
expensive nursing homes and destroying the elderly's dignity and
independence. Why? Because this bill provides no funding for the
Congregate Housing Services Program. The bill also eliminates funding
for the drug elimination grant program which has been so helpful to so
many in fighting crime and providing residents a sense of safety and
security.
The bill leaves two of the core programs untouched--HOME and CDBG.
That is good; however, do not be surprised if a year from now or
sooner, the mayors and the Governors are here begging for more money.
Because, the deep, deep cuts in public housing and section 8, and the
increases in the cost of that housing inevitably will mean trouble for
our cities and States--more deteriorated housing and more
homelessness--more people with nowhere safe and sound to live. While it
may seem that there are a myriad of discrete programs, in truth Federal
housing programs are interrelated, serving different needs and segments
of our low- and moderate-income families. When one program is
underfunded, it places pressure on all the other programs. What this
bill does, make no mistake, is place the burden on cities and States,
while the Federal Government takes a walk and abrogates its
responsibilities.
I know it has become fashionable to bash the Department of Housing
and Urban Development and to blame the poor, the victims, for their
troubles. But slashing funding for the very programs that provide for
one of the most basic needs--housing--is simply inexcusable.
HUD has taken a budget hit disproportionate to any other agency,
except perhaps the EPA. And through the appropriations bill, housing
policy--which I might add, should be under the purview of the Banking
Committee--has shifted and changed course dramatically, without the
benefit of hearings or analysis--all to get to the bottom line. So the
Republicans will make the fundamental problems of a lack of affordable
and decent housing and viable communities worse.
I have watched these programs work for poor and working families, for
the elderly and for the disabled throughout my public career. One of my
jobs in my home city of San Antonio before I came to Congress was with
the San Antonio Housing Authority. Then public housing worked as it
continues to in many communities today. And now with one simple action,
the Republican majority will devastate the lives of families currently
residing in public and assisted housing and those who wait, sometimes
for years, for such housing.
The Republicans talk about their historic budget resolution, their
vaunted balanced budget. But their bold insistence and desire to
provide foolhardy tax breaks for the wealthy at the expense of
America's poor and working families drives this process. That is the
thrust of this massive and mean assault on our most vulnerable
citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I include the executive summary of the study referred
to in my remarks for the Record, as follows:
In Short Supply: The Growing Affordable Housing Gap
i. summary
New national housing data show that the shortage of
affordable housing for low-income renters is now wider than
at any point on record. This gap--4.7 million units--has
grown consistently in recent decades because the number of
low-rent units has fallen while the number of low-income
families has grown. As a result of these trends, four of five
poor renter households with incomes below the federal poverty
line face housing costs that exceed 30 percent of their
income, the federal housing affordability standard set in
1981. More than three of five poor renters spend at least
half their income on rent and utilities.
The Affordable Housing Shortage
Data from the 1993 American Housing Survey, which is
sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development and conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census,
indicate that a substantial shortage of affordable housing
has developed in recent decades.
In 1970, the first year for which comparable data are
available, there were 7.4 million low-cost rental units. That
was roughly 900,000 greater than the number of low-income
renters, which stood at 6.5 million. (Low-income renters are
defined here as those with incomes of $12,000 or less in 1993
dollars, or roughly equal to the poverty line for a family of
three. Low-cost units are those with rent and utility costs
totaling less than 30 percent of a $12,000 annual income, or
less than $300 a month.)
By 1993 this situation had reversed. The number of low-rent
units fell to 6.5 million while the number of low-income
renters rose to 11.2 million--resulting in a shortage of 4.7
million affordable units. This is the largest shortage on
record. There are nearly two low-income renters for every
low-rent unit.
The affordable housing squeeze means that many poor renters
spend very large proportions of their income on housing. The
new AHS data show that:
Some 82 percent of poor renter households--5.7 million
households--spent more than 30 percent of their income on
rent and utilities in 1993.
Some 4.1 million poor renter households--or three of every
five poor renters--spent at least half of their income on
housing. These households are considered by HUD to have
``worst case'' housing needs and are given priority for
housing assistance under federal law.
The typical or median poor renter spent 60 percent of
income on housing in 1993.
These housing affordability problems are nationwide,
affecting poor households in every region of the country and
both urban and rural areas. They are not limited to racial or
ethnic minorities, and poor families with one or more workers
are nearly as likely as those relying on public assistance to
have very high housing cost burdens.
[[Page H 7824]]
The shortage of affordable housing is one million or more
rental units in every Census region--Northeast, Midwest,
South, and West. The widest affordable housing gaps, when
measured as the number of low-income renters competing for
each occupied low-rent unit, are in the West and
Northeast.1
1 Due to data limitations, the regional gap figures refer
to occupied low-cost units only, while the national gap
figure accounts for all low-cost units, including those that
are vacant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some 83 percent of poor renter households in central cities
spent at least 30 percent of income on housing in 1993, as
did 87 percent of poor renters in suburban areas and 74
percent of poor renters in nonmetro areas.
The problems of high housing cost burdens affect poor
white, black, and Hispanic households alike, with more than
four of five poor renters in each group spending at least 30
percent of income on housing. Similar proportions of both
elderly and non-elderly poor renters had housing cost burdens
this high, as did both working poor families with children
and poor families without a worker.
The Role of Housing Assistance
The growing affordability problem reflects both an increase
in poverty--and thus in the number of low-income renters--and
a sharp decline in the supply of low-cost housing in the
private market. In 1973, the first year for which such data
are available, there were 5.1 million unsubsidized units with
costs of $300 a month or less, as measured in 1993 dollars.
By 1993, this number had fallen to 2.9 million units, a
decline of 43 percent.
To help offset these trends, a significant portion of funds
appropriated for housing programs since the early 1970s has
been used to expand the supply of subsidized housing. While
this has led to an increase in the number of low-income
families receiving housing assistance, the number of new
housing commitments dropped markedly in the 1980s, even as
the affordable housing gap was widening.
Between fiscal years 1977 and 1980, HUD made commitments to
expand rental assistance to an average of 290,000 additional
low-income households each year.
From fiscal year 1981 through fiscal year 1995, new rental
housing commitments fell nearly three-fourths to an average
of 74,000 per year. In addition, two other federal housing
programs--the HOME program created in 1990 and the Low Income
Housing Tax Credit created in 1986--provide funds that allow
state and local governments and private organizations to
produce housing. Nevertheless, these programs are likely to
add only modestly to the supply of housing affordable to the
poorest renters since the programs generally are not targeted
to very low-income households with severe housing problems.
If the number of additional commitments made since 1981 had
remained at the level of the late-1970s, over three million
more low-income renters would be receiving housing assistance
today and the affordable housing gap would not be so wide.
Altogether, the relatively large expansion of federal
housing assistance in the 1970s and more modest expansion in
the 1980s resulted in an increase of 2.3 million
in the number of families receiving housing assistance. This
expansion was roughly equal to the decline in the number
of low-cost units in the private market but failed to
match the large increase in the number of low-income
renters over this period. The overall result was a net
loss in the proportion of low-income renters able to find
affordable units and a substantial widening of the
affordable housing gap.
Most poor renters remain without housing aid. In 1993, some
37 percent of poor renter households received a housing
subsidy from the federal, state, or local government. The
limited level of housing assistance means that most poor
families seeking housing assistance are placed on waiting
lists and usually wait several years before receiving aid. In
1993, some 1.4 million households were on waiting lists for
housing subsidies for privately owned housing, and 900,000
households were on waiting lists for public housing.
The Impact of Congressional Proposals To Cut Housing Programs
The trends highlighted in this analysis--a declining supply
of low-cost rental housing in the private market and a
growing number of low-income renters--indicate that unless
the number of families receiving government housing
assistance increases each year, the affordable housing gap
will grow wider. Congress, however, is considering large cuts
in funding for federal low-income housing programs. These
reductions are likely to end the longstanding practice of
modestly adding to the supply of subsidized housing each year
and would likely lead to a reduction in the number of low-
income families receiving assistance.
The cuts being considered would have an adverse effect on
the supply of low-cost housing. Reductions in operating and
modernization assistance for public housing included in the
House appropriations bill for HUD would likely lead to an
increase in the number of vacant public housing units, since
public housing authorities would face difficulty maintaining
current units and repairing dilapidated units. The bill also
would reduce funding for homeless assistance by nearly half,
while suspending the requirement that available subsidies be
targeted on households with severe housing problems that are
most at risk of becoming homeless. In addition, the bill's
elimination of efforts to expand the subsidized housing stock
while the number of low-rent unsubsidized units continues to
fall would widen the affordable housing gap. This can be seen
by calculating what would have happened had such policies
been in effect in the recent past. If no additional families
had received housing assistance between 1973 and 1993, the
shortage of affordable housing would have reached nearly 6.9
million units in 1993, rather than 4.7 million.
The proposed reductions in low-income housing programs also
would tighten the financial squeeze on many households with
very low incomes. Some of the federal savings would come from
raising rents on nearly all tenants of subsidized housing,
with the greatest increases falling on the poorest tenants.
Poor renters not receiving housing assistance also could
experience rent increases; if the number of unsubsidized low-
cost units continues to fall while the subsidized housing
stock is stagnant or begins to shrink, there will be more
low-income renters competing for fewer low-rent units. The
laws of supply and demand suggest this could push rents
upward for many unsubsidized low-rent units. Furthermore,
both poor renters who receive housing assistance and those
who do not are likely to face greater difficulty in meeting
higher rental costs as a result of reductions in other
federal programs that assist low-income families and
individuals. Expected reductions in AFDC, SSI, food stamps,
Medicaid, and the Earned Income Tax Credit will limit the
ability of many families to pay rent and meet other
necessities. The combined effect of these developments is
likely to be pressure for more poor families to ``double up''
and an increase in the number of families at risk of becoming
homeless.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen], a member of the
committee.
(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me the time. I rise in support of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, as a new member of this subcommittee I want to thank
Chairman Lewis, Congressman Stokes, and the subcommittee staff for
their leadership and guidance during this long process.
Our bill contains funding for many vital programs for our Nation's
veterans, to protect and preserve our environment, to help house the
needy and disabled, and for scientific research and discovery.
It has been a difficult task balancing these needs and funding all of
the programs. I believe that we have achieved this. In total, our bill
provides $79.4 billion for these programs. Mr. Chairman, this is $10.5
billion less than last year and $10.5 billion below the President's
budget request.
Like the other appropriations bills that have passed the House this
year, this bill moves the country closer toward the goal of a balanced
budget. While I do not agree with all the reductions in this bill, I do
believe it is time to stop throwing good money after bad and start
refocusing our limited resources toward programs that work.
Since subcommittee markup, I have been contacted by many people who
merely look at the bottom line or the appropriated level for each
agencies that are contained in this bill. I would suggest to these
people that they begin to look at the programs contained in this bill
and ask the question are these programs working? In many cases they are
not.
For example, both Secretary Cisneros and the President agree that the
Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] needs to be reformed.
In fact, it is the Secretary's own suggestion that many programs should
be eliminated and the entire department should be reduced down to three
umbrella programs. I am hopeful that the authorization committee on
housing will soon adopt a housing bill that will reform HUD and put it
back on track.
This message is also targeted toward the Environmental Protection
Agency [EPA]. Simply sitting back and extending current law, like
Superfund, is an abdication of their leadership. Its time to come to
the table and be a full partner toward reform. EPA's Administrator has
said the program is broken and this bill recognizes that fact. The bill
provides adequate funding to keep the program moving, however, it stops
the expansion of the program until the law is reauthorized. The last
reauthorization was done in 1986.
In reviewing EPA's budget, I have found that the Superfund situation
is not an isolated case, but a rule of thumb for many of EPA's
programs.
[[Page H 7825]]
Yes, environmental laws have worked, however, laws need to be updated
and reformed and the status quo is not acceptable. In many cases the
bureaucrats have decided arbitrarily to overstep their legal authority
and push policies that are clearly beyond statutory intent. Distracted
by regulation and litigation, EPA has lost their focus on the bottom
line--protecting our resources and addressing critical environmental
needs.
In my State of New Jersey, both housing and environmental programs
are extremely important. That is why I am pleased to have worked with
the chairman to provide additional resources for section 202 and 811--
two housing programs that do work to help our older Americans and
people with disabilities. This issue will be addressed in the
chairman's amendment and I thank him for his support of these programs.
This bill also funds the Department of Veterans Affairs. Nearly half
of the bill's funding supports these activities and I am pleased that
the committee was able to increase medical care above this year's level
by nearly $500 million. In addition we have been able to fully fund the
compensations and pensions programs, veterans' insurance, and the Loan
Guarantee Program.
This bill is not the perfect answer to all the problems that we face,
however, it is the first step in a process that will bring us toward a
compromise. Mr. Chairman, I support this bill and I urge my colleagues
to adopt this measure.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn].
Ms. DUNN of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise as a strong supporter of the space station and
urge my colleagues to continue funding for this valuable space and
science mission.
When I first came to Congress in 1993, I became a member of the
Science Committee and the Space Subcommittee. During the 103d Congress,
we lived through the highs and the lows of this program. There was a
call for the project to be redesigned, and space station funding passed
on the House floor by one single vote.
In early 1994, NASA made significant changes in the way it conducted
business. They streamlined the program. For the first time, they named
a single overall prime contractor for the space station, and they
brought proven private sector know-how, decision-making, and
competitiveness into the program.
Russia joined our international partnership, a partnership that
already included Japan, Canada, and member countries of the European
Space Agency. This provided us the opportunity to use selected Russian
hardware, to learn from their experience in extended space flight, and
to use the MIR space station for testing and training purposes. We all
witnessed the successful results of this partnership earlier this month
with the MIR docking.
The new, redesigned station, with Boeing as the prime contractor,
forced NASA to trim costs and develop a program that was both fiscally
and scientifically sound. The space station budget has been capped at
$2.1 billion annually. This is not an open-ended obligation, Mr.
Chairman. We will reach completion in 2002.
In 1994, continued funding for the station passed overwhelmingly,
highlighting the success and bipartisan support for this program.
Mr. Chairman, with the station, we will promote international
cooperation and the peaceful exploration of space. We will spawn new
industries, new products and new jobs. We will give rise to
unprecedented research capabilities, and we will provide incentives to
our students to pursue scientific professions if America remains
dedicated to preserving its scientific cutting edge.
Since we began the race for space in the 1950's, this Nation has
taken upon itself the role of leader, not only in space exploration but
also in space-based research.
For my colleagues who are looking for a down-to-earth, practical
reason to support this station, here is one for you: your mother, your
daughter, your sister, or your wife. Because of the unique microgravity
environment the station provides for research, new and exciting
approaches to diagnosing and treating breast cancer, ovarian cancer,
and osteoporosis are being investigated in space labs in ways that
simply are not possible on Earth.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, as a result of an amendment that I worked on
that set aside funding specifically for women's health care research,
for the first time on the recent MIR mission female rats were used to
study the relationship of long-term space existence on the development
of osteoporosis. Biomedical research on Earth, working hand-in-hand
with space-based research, will help eradicate this terrible disease
that affects our mothers.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that some of the cuts in this bill
are obviously acceptable in the interest of deficit reduction. But the
problem with this bill is that it simply goes too far. It makes what I
consider to be savage cuts in housing. It contains a wholesale assault
on our ability to protect public health and to protect clean water and
clean air and our natural resources, and it contains unnecessary
reductions in veterans' health care, all to free up more money in this
grand scheme to provide significant tax reduction for people who make
$200,000 a year or more.
I do not believe that is right. I would urge at the end of the day
after we have had at it on the amendments that unless this bill is
improved markedly, and I do not think it can be--I think it is beyond
help almost--I would urge you to vote against it.
I have great respect for the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis],
he is a good friend of mine, but I do not see any reason why we ought
to use this vehicle to really crunch in a serious way our ability to
protect public health from toxic chemicals.
If you take a look at this bill, fully one-third of this bill, which
is supposed to be simply a budget bill, contains illegitimate
legislative language that prevents the Government from enforcing the
law to protect the health of workers, to protect the right of
neighborhoods to know what kind of toxic chemicals are being infused
into the atmosphere, to protect the public's right to drink safe clean
water, and it engages in all kinds of Rube Goldberg operations in the
veterans' health care area in order to squeeze out yet more money for
tax cuts for the rich.
This is not a fair bill. It is not a decent bill. It ought to be
defeated.
{time} 1245
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 11/2 minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], ranking minority member of the
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], my good friend who has done yeoman's
work on trying to protect the poor and the vulnerable and the working
people and our senior citizens in this bill.
Mr. Chairman, the trouble is we just do not have the votes to protect
the people that the Republican majority wants to cut in order to
provide a tremendous tax break to the richest and most powerful
interests in this country, and at the same time, pump more and more
funds into the defense bill.
It would be one thing if all of these bills were looked at with any
kind of sensibility, but what we have seen is a $7.6 billion increase
in the defense bill alone as it pertains to equipment purchases. We are
buying B-2's that the Navy and Air Force say they do not need. We are
buying F-22's that they say they do not need. The Navy says it really
does not need this new submarine, but we are buying that anyway.
But, Mr. Chairman, when it comes to housing, we are going to go out
and get public housing, raise rents on our senior citizens, and turn
around and say that we are going to try to protect the homeless by
cutting the homeless program in this country by 50 percent.
When all sorts of Cain was raised about that, the Republicans are
going
[[Page H 7826]]
to come back in and say they are going to put another $1 million back
into the homeless program after 7 years, but they are going to take the
money out of assisted housing in order to fund the homeless program.
We are going to create more homelessness and put the money back into
homelessness. This is one of the most half-cocked, hair-brained schemes
I have ever seen. The authorizing committee ought to have had hearings;
made decisions about whether or not we ought to put funds into the
section 8 program, versus public housing, versus assisted housing.
There are good decisions that could be made and we do not have one of
them that is located in this bill.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Flake], the ranking minority member on the Subcommittee on
Domestic and International Monetary Policy.
(Mr. FLAKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
2099.
Mr. Chairman, I think all of us realize that these cuts are targeted
to the most vulnerable people in our population, those persons who are
in the greatest need, those persons who cannot stand the lethal blow
that this particular bill makes available for them.
Mr. Chairman, it is the highlight of arrogance, in my opinion, that
we devastate possibilities for community revitalization, that we take
those persons who are in need of government support as it relates to
section 8 rental assistance and that we reduce the amount available to
them, while at the same time raising the amount of rent that they will
have to pay.
Mr. Chairman, the height of hypocrisy is reflected in the fact that
on this day we unveil a memorial for the Korean War veterans, while at
the same time are cutting millions of dollars from the veterans'
programs.
As a nation, we cannot afford to continue to allow people to live in
substandard housing, allow people to live at a standard that is not
qualitative, so that all of our people understand that they have a
place in this great democracy of ours.
Mr. Chairman, where is our compassion? If we are compassionate, we
will vote this bill down.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], a member of the
subcommittee.
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, when I refer to H.R. 2099 in one word
that word is ``commitment.'' Congress has made a commitment to the
people of our Nation to balance the budget and this bill takes a large
step in that direction--providing more than $10 billion in deficit
reduction. Yes, Uncle Sam can be put on a diet and the Appropriations
Committee is his personal trainer.
But Congress also committed itself to end duplication of programs and
eliminate the never-ending source of redtape. This bill eliminates
outlived bureaucracies and consolidates several programs, with the
President's blessing, in an effort to improve services such as better
housing for those who need assistance.
Last, the bill fulfills our Nation's commitment to veterans. Our
veteran's health is of utmost importance. That is why the VA medical
care account was the only account in the bill not to receive a
reduction. Assuming that the chairman's upcoming amendment is
approved--and I urge my colleagues to support it--the VA medical care
account will increase by $562 million more than last year's funding
level. But that is not all. The bill provides increases over fiscal
year 1995 funding for compensation and pensions, readjustment benefits
for education and training, and veterans insurance. The bill also
provides funding for medical research, the National Cemetery System,
and State veterans' cemeteries, among other essential programs for
veterans.
As a member of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, I can tell you
that this was not an easy bill to draft--and I thank and applaud the
chairman and his staff for their dedication to this task. But it is a
bill that makes priorities and fulfills our commitment to the people of
this Nation to spend their money wisely. That is a promise made and a
promise kept by this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Waters], a member of the Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. It is
fundamentally flawed. It would ravage communities, uproot families, and
disrupt the lives of thousands of Americans. We must reform public
housing, but Republicans have gone about it entirely wrong.
This bill would increase rents paid by residents recieving section 8
vouchers from 30 to 32 percent of adjusted income. The average voucher
family has a yearly income just under $8,000. This increase would have
the affect of taking away $140 per year from these families.
It would also decresae the work incentive for able-bodied adults.
It would zero out community development banks, a bi-partisan programs
which generates private-sector economic development.
This bill reduces housing for seniors, for the sick, and for the
needy. It legislates a series of changes which would greatly inhibit
our ability to house Americans, expand opoprtunities, and develop
economically. It is extreme and it should be defeated. I urge defeat of
this bill.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Roybal-Allard], a member of the Subcommittee on Housing
and Community Opportunity.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill.
Mr. Chairman, the cuts contained in the Republican VA-HUD
appropriations bill are devastating for working American families. For
example, the community development financial institution fund, which
helps communities and individuals empower themselves, will be defunded.
The CDFI fund was created because residents and entrepreneurs from
low and moderate income communities unfairly experience barriers in
obtaining credit.
Many do not qualify for loans to purchase a home or start a business
because they lack conventional credit histories. As a result,
individuals and communities cannot achieve economic prosperity and
self-reliance.
CDFI fund resources leverage private sector funds and provide
assistance and training to community development financial
institutions.
The CDFI fund is a powerful tool that creates jobs, restores hope,
and provides a better way of life for those desiring a piece of the
American dream.
Only last year the CDFI received the near unanimous support of
Democrats and Republicans. Vote ``no'' on the VA-HUD appropriations
bill.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk specifically about cuts in
this bill which concern me greatly; cuts to the Mission to Planet
Earth, a critical NASA program. The President requested $1.34 billion.
This bill, unfortunately, includes only $1 billion. That is a lot of
money, but it is a very significant reduction from the request and from
the level adopted by the Committee on Science this week.
The committee, on Tuesday, reported a bill that authorizes $1.27
billion for Mission to Planet Earth. This is $272 million above the
reported appropriation amount.
Mr. Chairman, we should restore that money, if the allocation to this
appropriation measure was not so constrained. I understand the problem
of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Stokes] with respect to the funds available, but this program
is a critical program for the future, not only of the space program,
but for the future of the ability of those of us on Earth to understand
better our environment and our weather.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the committee would see fit to
increasing this sum as this bill moves through.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition
to H.R. 2099. It represents a political meat ax, rather than a
responsible
[[Page H 7827]]
carving knife, as we approach the budget process.
Mr. Chairman, there is a 23-percent cut in housing programs,
representing more than $5 billion; representing the elimination of
personal programs such as section 8, which helps disadvantaged people
get housing, and HOPE homeownership grants that allow people to pursue
the American dream.
This bill represents a 46-percent cut in housing for the elderly. How
some Members could say we are helping the elderly is beyond me. The
elderly will pay between an average of 400 and 600 additional dollars
per year for senior housing.
Mr. Chairman, this bill represents a 54-percent cut for low-income
assisted housing programs, the working poor of our country, and a 49-
percent cut in homeless programs, which means that more Americans will
be living in cardboard boxes and laying out along the street side.
Critically, it represents a 48-percent cut in construction and
improvement in veterans' facilities, which means our Nation's veterans
will continue to see inadequate treatment and work in inadequate
facilities.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York [Ms. Velazquez].
(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today out of a sense of deep
sadness and outrage. Yet again, the majority brings before this body an
attack on children, the elderly, and the poor.
The cuts in this bill are criminal. Funding for low-income housing is
slashed by $7 billion. Homeless assistance; public and assisted
housing; housing for the elderly, the disabled, and AIDS victims; and
the FHA multifamily insurance program all suffer steep rollbacks. Many
others, such as the Drug Elimination Program, are eliminated
altogether. These cuts, Mr. Chairman, aren't about numbers--they're
about human beings. There's a human tragedy behind every dollar of
these reductions.
On any given night last winter, there were 600,000 men, women, and
sometimes children living on the streets. This bill's $540 million cut
in the McKinney program would mean that hundreds of thousands more will
join them this winter. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 2099.
There is too much pain behind this bill.
A $700 million cut in public housing operating subsidies, and a $2.3
billion reduction in the public housing capital budget isn't an
abstraction. These cuts mean delays in both basic maintenance and major
repairs; less security services; and the elimination of essential
social services. For 3 million public housing residents, the reductions
translate into deteriorating buildings, greater insecurity, and fewer
opportunities for economic advancement.
Ending the Drug Elimination Program isn't about cutting wasteful
pork-barrel projects. In New York City, the program funds 435 housing
police officers who patrol the grounds and hallways of New York's
public housing developments. These beat cops would be lost.
This is only a partial list of the many tragedies that would result
from this bill. At some point in this appropriations process,
reasonable minds and compassionate hearts must prevail. I urge my
colleagues to reach that point in this bill.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Vento], a member of the Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity.
(Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I certainly rise in opposition to this bill,
because it affects the people we represent.
Mr. Chairman, what do they want from us? What do they expect from
this bill? They expect decent, affordable, sanitary shelter. They
expect environmental justice. They expect us to try and respond to what
their needs are.
We obviously have a budget problem, that is dug deeper by the tax
breaks that our Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle
seem to want to advance and dig the hole deeper with our Federal budget
deficit. We have to pull in the belt, but we do not have to do it on
the basis of the poorest of the poor, the working people, or families.
{time} 1300
They want shelter; they want a green environment. They want the same
small good things of life. People want us to take the knowledge we have
and use it to provide for their need and protection.
There are a lot of people walking around who have got their heads up
in the stars. They want to look too and fund the space station. The
votes are here for that.
Frankly, to me, it is the alchemists project of the 20th century
trying to do something of questionable value at the very same time we
have got real serious problems right here in our communities. We have
got to advance not just on defeating the budget deficit, the fiscal
deficit, but we have got to deal wi
Major Actions:
All articles in House section
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996
(House of Representatives - July 27, 1995)
Text of this article available as:
[Pages H7820-H7913]
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 201 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2099.
{time} 1211
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
2099) making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and
Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies,
boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, with Mr. Combest in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] will each be recognized for 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, colleagues, I am pleased to present H.R. 2099--the VA,
HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill for fiscal 1996. Let
me get right to the bottom line. This bill, as it now stands, provides
$60.045 in discretionary budget authority and $19.361 billion for
mandatory accounts. This represents an overall reduction of $10.006
billion--or minus 14.3 percent--in domestic discretionary authority
from last year's levels. It is $10.482 billion less than President
Clinton requested for the 22 agencies, boards, and commissions that
fall within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.
Following directly from our recent success in the rescissions
package, this bill represents the urgent need to put Uncle Sam on a
diet. We are doing what many said could never be done. We are making
the tough decisions required to balance the Federal budget in 7 years.
The bill reflects real cuts in each and every agency, except the VA's
medical care account. These cuts, in this bill, at this time, are
absolutely required if we are to keep our commitment to the American
people regarding changing the way their Government in Washington
operates with their hard earned tax dollars. We do not have the luxury
of postponing these decisions to the outyears. We have tightened Uncle
Sam's belt a notch or two, but this is the beginning, not the end, of
identifying real savings.
At this point, I want to move away from the numbers for just a moment
in order to share a few observations about the many people who have
made it possible for the subcommittee to bring this bill to the floor
today. I know that you will understand when I say this--the
chairmanship of the VA-HUD subcommittee is not a lonely job. The
Members should know how fortunate I feel to be working so directly with
Mr. Stokes of Ohio who chaired the subcommittee in the 103d Congress.
Mr. Stokes is much more than a friend. Time and again, he has been
someone on whom I can absolutely count when it comes to understanding
the impact of the fundamental changes which we are making. The
gentleman from Ohio never stops listening or working with me regardless
of how much he may disagree with the substance of any matter under
negotiation. And we appreciate the help we get from his able staff--
particularly Leslie Atkinson and Del Davis.
Throughout our hearings this year as the subcommittee developed the
bill, I encountered reactions ranging from amazement to amusement among
our subcommittee's 11 other members. But I have always known that I
could count on each and every one of those members to work with me to
improve the direction, substance, and purpose of this bill. Indeed, it
is a very special privilege to work on such a close basis with all who
serve on the VA-HUD subcommittee. To a person, they are men and women
of uncommon
intelligence and conviction. This bill reflects their bipartisan
participation and cooperation.
Last, I want to say how much I value and appreciate the work of the
staff. With the exception of Paul Thomson who has long worked with us
on appropriations matters, ours is a brand new
[[Page H 7821]]
partnership. The work of the staff--beginning with our staff director
Frank Cushing and including Jon Gauthier, Tim Peterson, and Todd Weber
has been first rate. Their attention to detail has been nothing short
of essential and I just want each and every one of them to know of our
appreciation.
In keeping with the Speaker's guidance, the subcommittee has made
every effort to work with all of the committees of jurisdiction that
authorize the various programs affected by this bill. Though there will
be continuing controversy over the numerous housing and environmental
administrative provisions contained in this bill, the membership should
know that we have worked diligently at both the member and staff level
to develop the language with the knowledge and expertise of the various
chairs in the Commerce, Transportation and Infrastructure, Veterans,
Banking, Judiciary, Science, and Agriculture Committees.
When we have completed general debate, I will offer an amendment that
increases the total dollars already provided for VA medical care, VA
health professional scholarships, special needs
housing, homeless assistance, and FHA multifamily credit subsidies.
This amendment culminates the prolonged negotiations which we have had
with our leadership and many of our authorizing partners. I share their
desire to see much less legislation in this bill next year and I hope
the coalitions which we have formed in working together this year will
be lasting ones.
Let me move now to summarizing just a few of the many difficult
choices and positive highlights that make up this complex piece of
legislation.
difficult choices
Four agencies are terminated for a savings of $703 million in
discretionary authority from 1995 enacted levels: The Corporation for
National and Community Service, Community Development Financial
Institutions, the Chemical Safety and Hazards Investigation Board, and
the Council on Environmental Quality. It's possible that we may get an
amendment contemplating the elimination of yet another--the Selective
Service System.
The bill does not provide requested funding for the construction of
two additional VA hospitals in Florida and California which would have
resulted in major construction costs of $343.2 million this year. We
hope to continue working with Members from the affected regions to
provide state of the art outpatient facilities that are consistent with
the direction that Veterans
Secretary Jesse Brown suggested last year when the VA was
participating in the national health care reform debate.
NASA, too, will make a major contribution to deficit reduction. Their
budget has been reduced by $705 million from last year's level. And we
have gone much farther than I think Administrator Goldin would be
comfortable with. This bill begins the process of reducing the size of
NASA's plate. It makes real and painful program changes which will
reduce fiscal year 1996 and outyear pressures. Two major NASA programs,
the Space Infrared Telescope Facility and EOS will be substantially
altered in order to help reduce the pressures on the overall bill.
This bill provides $4.88 billion for the EPA--a reduction of $2.4
billion or 33 percent from the fiscal year 1995 level. Frankly, our
bill is an urgent plea to Administrator Browner. If you believe that
Superfund is broken, help us fix it. If you believe that command and
control is the wrong approach, act now to make EPA a facilitator of
progressive environmental policy rather than an enforcer of excessive
and inflexible Federal mandates. If you believe that EPA should base
decisions on proven sound science, risk assessment, and thorough cost-
benefit analysis, by all means join with us in perfecting this bill.
The EPA is a regulatory agency completely out of control, an agency
that until now has delighted in routinely redefining its mission
without proper
congressonal oversight. The legislative provisions in this bill
reflect the need and desire to restore some common sense and
flexibility to the challenges of environmental protection in our
country. The EPA should be a facilitator of progressive environmental
policy rather than an enforcer of excessive and inflexible Federal
mandates.
With regard to Superfund, I understand that my colleague from Ohio,
Mr. Oxley, the chairman of the authorizing Commerce Subcommittee, is
set to move a reauthorization bill this fall. It is my hope that
Administrator Browner will work with the authorizing committee in
addressing the difficulties of this task. The issuance and funding of
new records of decision [RODS] by potentially responsible parties is
one area that should be analyzed during the reauthorization process.
Emphasizing the positives
The subcommittee has provided a funding level of $38.1 billion for
the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA stands alone among the
agencies in our jurisdiction. It's funding is not significantly
reduced. Every requested dollar for mandatory spending is provided. If
my conforming amendment is adopted in a few moments, an increase of
$562 million will be provided for medical care--over and above last
year's funding level of $16.2 billion.
We have also taken great care to provide every available dollar for
the basic research mission of the National Science Foundation. NSF
would receive $3.1 billion in this bill--a reduction of 6.5 percent or
$200 million from last year's level.
The subcommittee's overall funding level for HUD, if my manager's
amendment is adopted, would be $19.4 billion. The mark recognizes that
two of HUD's largest and most cost effective programs--community
development block grants--$4.6 billion--and the home investments
partnership program--$1.4 billion--are working largely as intended.
Neither program will absorb reduction's from last year's level.
The subcommittee has been mindful of the guidance from those who
receive HUD dollars--nonprofits, local public housing authorities, and
resident groups--that reductions in their funding should not proceed
this year absent substantial legislative reform that maximizes
flexibility in how they administer Federal housing dollars. And, even
though HUD's comprehensive reform bill is far from final action in the
authorizing process, we have provided $862 million for a section 8
replacement assistance fund.
In all of these matters, I have had the privilege of working with Mr.
Lazio--the chairman of the Banking Subcommittee on Housing. He has
reminded me more than once that there is great need for thoughtfulness
when one wields the machete. Numbers drive policy. Policy drives
perception. And before we know it, we can have real change in the
broken delivery mechanism that we all know as HUD.
The section 8 replacement assistance funds will provide for nearly
77,000 units of tenant based housing, thus allowing the Secretary to
proceed with two of his most important initiatives--tearing down the
worst of the low vacancy high rises in public housing and targeting
assistance to individuals rather than properties. These vouchers will
be available to anyone who loses their unit if these long overdue
changes are undertaken by the Secretary. No one will be thrown out on
the street and many of the individuals who could receive assistance
under this fund will be in decent housing for the first time in years.
Mr. Speaker, these are the challenges and highlights presented with
the fiscal year 1996 VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations
bill. I hope that the members will see fit to accept the difficult
tradeoffs reflected here. I urge you to support the bill when we get to
final passage.
{time} 1215
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2099, the fiscal
year 1996 appropriations bill for Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban
Development, and independent agencies. As a member of this subcommittee
for more than 20 years, it is a difficult position for me today to
stand here in opposition to this measure.
Let me first acknowledge and recognize the work and leadership of our
chairman and colleague from California, Jerry Lewis. No one knows
better than I, having previously served as chairman of this
subcommittee, the complexities of this bill. As it stands, we must
provide funding for critical
[[Page H 7822]]
veterans, housing, environmental, science, and research and development
programs. The increasing Federal deficit and call for Government reform
has heightened the problems of meeting these essential needs. So
Chairman Lewis' task has not been an easy one.
Nonetheless, within the allocation that this subcommittee received,
we have considerable opportunity to try and meet the basic and pressing
priorities upon which veterans, the elderly, and low-income and working
Americans depend. Unfortunately, instead, the subcommittee launches a
wholesale assault on these individuals and those critical programs that
provide safety net and human service programs, not to mention programs
that are
designed to ensure a safer and cleaner environment for our children
and our communities.
Now we have heard our colleagues on the other side represent this
bill as fair, given the adverse allocation of the subcommittee. But I
don't think that our veterans, our elderly, our children, and our poor
would agree. In fact, the President does not agree and has already
indicated that he will veto this bill if it is presented to him in its
present form. In his statement on H.R. 2099, the President says and I
quote:
The fiscal year 1996 VA/HUD appropriations bill passed by
the House Appropriations Committee is unacceptable. I call on
the Congress to correct the appropriations bills now under
consideration before they reach my desk, not after.
Let me take a moment to explain to you why this bill is so
unacceptable to the President and those of us who care about people.
For our veterans, this bill reduces by nearly $1 billion the level of
spending that the President has requested for veterans including
medical care, general expenses, and construction projects. These cuts
seem especially callous. Certainly, individuals who have given the
ultimate sacrifice and risked their lives for our collective safety and
well
being deserve to have the full level of security for themselves and
their families to live out the rest of their lives.
In a letter circulated yesterday to all Members of the House James J.
Kenney, executive director of AMVETS stated:
The designated appropriations still falls well short of the
funding necessary to even maintain the current level of
earned entitlements for our veterans.
Further he says:
The proposed budget will require painful decisions on the
elimination of critical services.
The bill falls short in the areas of medical care--almost $200
million below the President's budget request, in construction--where
critical facilities are needed for a growing and aging veterans
population, in benefits servicing--where a cut to the VA Benefits
Administration would impact the first line of support veterans receive
when they approach the VA through the vocational rehabilitation
counselling and the veterans services divisions.
This bill, once again, targets housing programs as we saw earlier
this year in the rescissions bill. On top of the $7 billion taken from
HUD in the 1995 rescissions, this measure cuts $5.3 billion from the
President's request. The severity of the reductions are appalling
enough seeing that $4.2 billion of the cuts to HUD came from housing
programs
alone. Hardest hit are those programs that provide affordable and
decent housing for the elderly and poor, like section 8 incremental
rental assistance and public housing operating and modernization funds.
But our colleagues on the other side did not stop here. Added to
these crushing reductions are pages of extensive legislation that is
tantamount to repealing the statutory goal of decent, safe, and
sanitary housing for all Americans. Minimum rents are set and residents
who only average $8,000 a year in income are forced to pay more in
terms of their rent contributions.
At a time when affordable housing is at a record short supply, this
bill would not only gut affordable and low-income housing but cut
homeless assistance grants by $400 million. Secretary Henry Cisneros
has stated that while the committee sees savings in these actions, he
sees a terrible pain for the most economically vulnerable working
people. Several colleagues and I will be offering amendments to try and
correct these harmful actions.
When they finished with destroying our investment in public and low-
income housing, our colleagues decided to set back this Nation's
efforts to ensure that each American breathe clean air, drink clean
water, and be safe from hazardous waste dangers. This devastation is
accomplished
through a cut in funding to programs like the Superfund Program, the
Safe Drinking Water Revolving Fund, the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund, and EPA operating programs. The public health is further
jeopardized by the nearly 20 limitations and riders that further these
pernicious acts. I will be offering, with my colleague on the other
side, Congressman Sherry Boehlert, an amendment to strike these riders
from the bill.
The list of egregious actions in H.R. 2099 unfortunately continues.
The Corporation for National and Community Service [AmeriCorps] and the
Community Development Financial Institutions Program are terminated.
The bill also calls for the close out of the Council on Environmental
Quality within the Executive Office of the President.
Our Nation's critical investment in science and technology has also
been reduced through the 5-percent cut in NASA and the 6-percent cut in
the National Science Foundation.
The reductions in this bill are severe and reason enough for not
supporting this legislation. What is even worse is that the cuts are
being made in part to finance a tax break for the most wealthy. These
actions are penny wise and pound foolish and I therefore strongly
oppose this bill.
{time} 1230
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg], a member of the committee.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
bill.
I would like to begin by commending the gentleman from California,
Chairman Lewis, for all of his hard work. Shepherding an appropriations
bill through the legislative process is no easy task, yet he has done
it with skill and flair. I would also like to thank the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
And finally, we all owe a debt of gratitude to the subcommittee
staff--Frank Cushing, Paul Thomson, Tim Peterson, John Gauthier and
Todd Weber. We truly would not be here today if it weren't for their
tireless efforts.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It does not simply spread the pain
throughout all of the programs in its jurisdiction, it makes the tough
choices necessary to move up toward a balanced budget. Overall, it cuts
about $10 billion in spending from last year's level. But it also
preserves funding for programs which work well and are important to the
Nation's future.
Now, we are going to hear a lot of heated rhetoric about
disproportionate cuts in housing programs. But do not let that get in
the way of the facts. Yes, next year housing programs will have to
absorb some spending reductions--there is no doubt about it.
But when compared to the other agencies in this bill, HUD's funding
actually will take up a larger share of the outlays than they did this
year. In short, HUD will enjoy a slightly larger piece of a smaller
pie. And in the present budgetary environment, that is nothing to
complain about.
Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of good in this bill. VA medical care
has been protected, as has funding for university-based scientific
research. We preserve funding for NASA's core missions; and we send EPA
a strong message that they must move away from their current Soviet-
style, command and control system of regulation.
I am sure that every Member of this body, given the chance, would
draft a VA-HUD bill that is different from the legislation before us.
But, to use an often-heard quote, we can't let the perfect be the enemy
of the good.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 11/2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
[[Page H 7823]]
(Mr. GONZALEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues in expressing my
strong opposition to the mean spirited and draconian HUD-VA
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. If this bill is enacted, we
are signaling almost a full retreat by the Federal Government as a
critical partner in affordable housing and community revitalization.
H.R. 2099 slashes one-quarter of the budget for the Department of
Housing and Urban Development. It neither expands, nor preserves, nor
rehabilitates public and assisted housing and then requires poor
families to pay more for deteriorating housing, or go homeless.
I find it ironic that on Monday the Center for Budget and Policy
Priorities released its new study, ``In Short Supply: The Growing
Affordable Housing Gap,'' which determined that the number of low-
income renters exceeded the number of affordable rental units by 4.7
million low-income renters. This Nation has lost 43 percent of its
affordable housing supply, some 2.2 million housing units, over the
last two decades, according to the study.
If we pass this appropriations bill, we virtually ensure that
affordable housing will continue to decrease and deteriorate; we will
lose our $90 billion investment in public housing; and hundreds of
thousands more families will become or remain homeless. Despite what
our colleagues on the majority and on the Appropriations Committee
contend, these are not hard decisions, they are heartless.
Public housing residents in the more than 3,400 local housing
authorities throughout the Nation are at risk of seeing their everyday
maintenance requests go unanswered for lack of operating subsidies.
This appropriations bill funds operating subsidies at only $2.5
billion, some $400 million below this year's funding and only 85
percent of what housing authorities need to operate their housing
authorities.
And the eyesores of deteriorated and dilapidated housing in many of
our urban centers will remain vacant and crumbling, further destroying
neighborhoods because nearly one-third of the modernization funds and
all of the urban revitalization grants for severely distressed public
housing projects will be lost if this bill passes.
There will be no new public housing funded and no new section 8
certificates available for the first time in 20 years even though there
are more than 5.6 million families today who pay more than 50 percent
of their incomes for rent, or who live in substandard housing. There
are more than 1.5 million families on public housing and section 8
waiting lists throughout this country. The number of families who are
homeless or who pay exorbitant rents or who live in terrible housing
conditions grows each year by more than 10 times the number of new
families that would be assisted under the appropriation bills for 1996.
During this fiscal year 88,400 units of affordable housing were
financed through the various Federal housing programs--next year fewer
than 15,000 units.
Frail elderly residents of public and assisted housing will not
receive critical supportive services like personal care,
transportation, and congregate dining, hastening the entry into
expensive nursing homes and destroying the elderly's dignity and
independence. Why? Because this bill provides no funding for the
Congregate Housing Services Program. The bill also eliminates funding
for the drug elimination grant program which has been so helpful to so
many in fighting crime and providing residents a sense of safety and
security.
The bill leaves two of the core programs untouched--HOME and CDBG.
That is good; however, do not be surprised if a year from now or
sooner, the mayors and the Governors are here begging for more money.
Because, the deep, deep cuts in public housing and section 8, and the
increases in the cost of that housing inevitably will mean trouble for
our cities and States--more deteriorated housing and more
homelessness--more people with nowhere safe and sound to live. While it
may seem that there are a myriad of discrete programs, in truth Federal
housing programs are interrelated, serving different needs and segments
of our low- and moderate-income families. When one program is
underfunded, it places pressure on all the other programs. What this
bill does, make no mistake, is place the burden on cities and States,
while the Federal Government takes a walk and abrogates its
responsibilities.
I know it has become fashionable to bash the Department of Housing
and Urban Development and to blame the poor, the victims, for their
troubles. But slashing funding for the very programs that provide for
one of the most basic needs--housing--is simply inexcusable.
HUD has taken a budget hit disproportionate to any other agency,
except perhaps the EPA. And through the appropriations bill, housing
policy--which I might add, should be under the purview of the Banking
Committee--has shifted and changed course dramatically, without the
benefit of hearings or analysis--all to get to the bottom line. So the
Republicans will make the fundamental problems of a lack of affordable
and decent housing and viable communities worse.
I have watched these programs work for poor and working families, for
the elderly and for the disabled throughout my public career. One of my
jobs in my home city of San Antonio before I came to Congress was with
the San Antonio Housing Authority. Then public housing worked as it
continues to in many communities today. And now with one simple action,
the Republican majority will devastate the lives of families currently
residing in public and assisted housing and those who wait, sometimes
for years, for such housing.
The Republicans talk about their historic budget resolution, their
vaunted balanced budget. But their bold insistence and desire to
provide foolhardy tax breaks for the wealthy at the expense of
America's poor and working families drives this process. That is the
thrust of this massive and mean assault on our most vulnerable
citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I include the executive summary of the study referred
to in my remarks for the Record, as follows:
In Short Supply: The Growing Affordable Housing Gap
i. summary
New national housing data show that the shortage of
affordable housing for low-income renters is now wider than
at any point on record. This gap--4.7 million units--has
grown consistently in recent decades because the number of
low-rent units has fallen while the number of low-income
families has grown. As a result of these trends, four of five
poor renter households with incomes below the federal poverty
line face housing costs that exceed 30 percent of their
income, the federal housing affordability standard set in
1981. More than three of five poor renters spend at least
half their income on rent and utilities.
The Affordable Housing Shortage
Data from the 1993 American Housing Survey, which is
sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development and conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census,
indicate that a substantial shortage of affordable housing
has developed in recent decades.
In 1970, the first year for which comparable data are
available, there were 7.4 million low-cost rental units. That
was roughly 900,000 greater than the number of low-income
renters, which stood at 6.5 million. (Low-income renters are
defined here as those with incomes of $12,000 or less in 1993
dollars, or roughly equal to the poverty line for a family of
three. Low-cost units are those with rent and utility costs
totaling less than 30 percent of a $12,000 annual income, or
less than $300 a month.)
By 1993 this situation had reversed. The number of low-rent
units fell to 6.5 million while the number of low-income
renters rose to 11.2 million--resulting in a shortage of 4.7
million affordable units. This is the largest shortage on
record. There are nearly two low-income renters for every
low-rent unit.
The affordable housing squeeze means that many poor renters
spend very large proportions of their income on housing. The
new AHS data show that:
Some 82 percent of poor renter households--5.7 million
households--spent more than 30 percent of their income on
rent and utilities in 1993.
Some 4.1 million poor renter households--or three of every
five poor renters--spent at least half of their income on
housing. These households are considered by HUD to have
``worst case'' housing needs and are given priority for
housing assistance under federal law.
The typical or median poor renter spent 60 percent of
income on housing in 1993.
These housing affordability problems are nationwide,
affecting poor households in every region of the country and
both urban and rural areas. They are not limited to racial or
ethnic minorities, and poor families with one or more workers
are nearly as likely as those relying on public assistance to
have very high housing cost burdens.
[[Page H 7824]]
The shortage of affordable housing is one million or more
rental units in every Census region--Northeast, Midwest,
South, and West. The widest affordable housing gaps, when
measured as the number of low-income renters competing for
each occupied low-rent unit, are in the West and
Northeast.1
1 Due to data limitations, the regional gap figures refer
to occupied low-cost units only, while the national gap
figure accounts for all low-cost units, including those that
are vacant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some 83 percent of poor renter households in central cities
spent at least 30 percent of income on housing in 1993, as
did 87 percent of poor renters in suburban areas and 74
percent of poor renters in nonmetro areas.
The problems of high housing cost burdens affect poor
white, black, and Hispanic households alike, with more than
four of five poor renters in each group spending at least 30
percent of income on housing. Similar proportions of both
elderly and non-elderly poor renters had housing cost burdens
this high, as did both working poor families with children
and poor families without a worker.
The Role of Housing Assistance
The growing affordability problem reflects both an increase
in poverty--and thus in the number of low-income renters--and
a sharp decline in the supply of low-cost housing in the
private market. In 1973, the first year for which such data
are available, there were 5.1 million unsubsidized units with
costs of $300 a month or less, as measured in 1993 dollars.
By 1993, this number had fallen to 2.9 million units, a
decline of 43 percent.
To help offset these trends, a significant portion of funds
appropriated for housing programs since the early 1970s has
been used to expand the supply of subsidized housing. While
this has led to an increase in the number of low-income
families receiving housing assistance, the number of new
housing commitments dropped markedly in the 1980s, even as
the affordable housing gap was widening.
Between fiscal years 1977 and 1980, HUD made commitments to
expand rental assistance to an average of 290,000 additional
low-income households each year.
From fiscal year 1981 through fiscal year 1995, new rental
housing commitments fell nearly three-fourths to an average
of 74,000 per year. In addition, two other federal housing
programs--the HOME program created in 1990 and the Low Income
Housing Tax Credit created in 1986--provide funds that allow
state and local governments and private organizations to
produce housing. Nevertheless, these programs are likely to
add only modestly to the supply of housing affordable to the
poorest renters since the programs generally are not targeted
to very low-income households with severe housing problems.
If the number of additional commitments made since 1981 had
remained at the level of the late-1970s, over three million
more low-income renters would be receiving housing assistance
today and the affordable housing gap would not be so wide.
Altogether, the relatively large expansion of federal
housing assistance in the 1970s and more modest expansion in
the 1980s resulted in an increase of 2.3 million
in the number of families receiving housing assistance. This
expansion was roughly equal to the decline in the number
of low-cost units in the private market but failed to
match the large increase in the number of low-income
renters over this period. The overall result was a net
loss in the proportion of low-income renters able to find
affordable units and a substantial widening of the
affordable housing gap.
Most poor renters remain without housing aid. In 1993, some
37 percent of poor renter households received a housing
subsidy from the federal, state, or local government. The
limited level of housing assistance means that most poor
families seeking housing assistance are placed on waiting
lists and usually wait several years before receiving aid. In
1993, some 1.4 million households were on waiting lists for
housing subsidies for privately owned housing, and 900,000
households were on waiting lists for public housing.
The Impact of Congressional Proposals To Cut Housing Programs
The trends highlighted in this analysis--a declining supply
of low-cost rental housing in the private market and a
growing number of low-income renters--indicate that unless
the number of families receiving government housing
assistance increases each year, the affordable housing gap
will grow wider. Congress, however, is considering large cuts
in funding for federal low-income housing programs. These
reductions are likely to end the longstanding practice of
modestly adding to the supply of subsidized housing each year
and would likely lead to a reduction in the number of low-
income families receiving assistance.
The cuts being considered would have an adverse effect on
the supply of low-cost housing. Reductions in operating and
modernization assistance for public housing included in the
House appropriations bill for HUD would likely lead to an
increase in the number of vacant public housing units, since
public housing authorities would face difficulty maintaining
current units and repairing dilapidated units. The bill also
would reduce funding for homeless assistance by nearly half,
while suspending the requirement that available subsidies be
targeted on households with severe housing problems that are
most at risk of becoming homeless. In addition, the bill's
elimination of efforts to expand the subsidized housing stock
while the number of low-rent unsubsidized units continues to
fall would widen the affordable housing gap. This can be seen
by calculating what would have happened had such policies
been in effect in the recent past. If no additional families
had received housing assistance between 1973 and 1993, the
shortage of affordable housing would have reached nearly 6.9
million units in 1993, rather than 4.7 million.
The proposed reductions in low-income housing programs also
would tighten the financial squeeze on many households with
very low incomes. Some of the federal savings would come from
raising rents on nearly all tenants of subsidized housing,
with the greatest increases falling on the poorest tenants.
Poor renters not receiving housing assistance also could
experience rent increases; if the number of unsubsidized low-
cost units continues to fall while the subsidized housing
stock is stagnant or begins to shrink, there will be more
low-income renters competing for fewer low-rent units. The
laws of supply and demand suggest this could push rents
upward for many unsubsidized low-rent units. Furthermore,
both poor renters who receive housing assistance and those
who do not are likely to face greater difficulty in meeting
higher rental costs as a result of reductions in other
federal programs that assist low-income families and
individuals. Expected reductions in AFDC, SSI, food stamps,
Medicaid, and the Earned Income Tax Credit will limit the
ability of many families to pay rent and meet other
necessities. The combined effect of these developments is
likely to be pressure for more poor families to ``double up''
and an increase in the number of families at risk of becoming
homeless.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen], a member of the
committee.
(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me the time. I rise in support of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, as a new member of this subcommittee I want to thank
Chairman Lewis, Congressman Stokes, and the subcommittee staff for
their leadership and guidance during this long process.
Our bill contains funding for many vital programs for our Nation's
veterans, to protect and preserve our environment, to help house the
needy and disabled, and for scientific research and discovery.
It has been a difficult task balancing these needs and funding all of
the programs. I believe that we have achieved this. In total, our bill
provides $79.4 billion for these programs. Mr. Chairman, this is $10.5
billion less than last year and $10.5 billion below the President's
budget request.
Like the other appropriations bills that have passed the House this
year, this bill moves the country closer toward the goal of a balanced
budget. While I do not agree with all the reductions in this bill, I do
believe it is time to stop throwing good money after bad and start
refocusing our limited resources toward programs that work.
Since subcommittee markup, I have been contacted by many people who
merely look at the bottom line or the appropriated level for each
agencies that are contained in this bill. I would suggest to these
people that they begin to look at the programs contained in this bill
and ask the question are these programs working? In many cases they are
not.
For example, both Secretary Cisneros and the President agree that the
Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] needs to be reformed.
In fact, it is the Secretary's own suggestion that many programs should
be eliminated and the entire department should be reduced down to three
umbrella programs. I am hopeful that the authorization committee on
housing will soon adopt a housing bill that will reform HUD and put it
back on track.
This message is also targeted toward the Environmental Protection
Agency [EPA]. Simply sitting back and extending current law, like
Superfund, is an abdication of their leadership. Its time to come to
the table and be a full partner toward reform. EPA's Administrator has
said the program is broken and this bill recognizes that fact. The bill
provides adequate funding to keep the program moving, however, it stops
the expansion of the program until the law is reauthorized. The last
reauthorization was done in 1986.
In reviewing EPA's budget, I have found that the Superfund situation
is not an isolated case, but a rule of thumb for many of EPA's
programs.
[[Page H 7825]]
Yes, environmental laws have worked, however, laws need to be updated
and reformed and the status quo is not acceptable. In many cases the
bureaucrats have decided arbitrarily to overstep their legal authority
and push policies that are clearly beyond statutory intent. Distracted
by regulation and litigation, EPA has lost their focus on the bottom
line--protecting our resources and addressing critical environmental
needs.
In my State of New Jersey, both housing and environmental programs
are extremely important. That is why I am pleased to have worked with
the chairman to provide additional resources for section 202 and 811--
two housing programs that do work to help our older Americans and
people with disabilities. This issue will be addressed in the
chairman's amendment and I thank him for his support of these programs.
This bill also funds the Department of Veterans Affairs. Nearly half
of the bill's funding supports these activities and I am pleased that
the committee was able to increase medical care above this year's level
by nearly $500 million. In addition we have been able to fully fund the
compensations and pensions programs, veterans' insurance, and the Loan
Guarantee Program.
This bill is not the perfect answer to all the problems that we face,
however, it is the first step in a process that will bring us toward a
compromise. Mr. Chairman, I support this bill and I urge my colleagues
to adopt this measure.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn].
Ms. DUNN of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise as a strong supporter of the space station and
urge my colleagues to continue funding for this valuable space and
science mission.
When I first came to Congress in 1993, I became a member of the
Science Committee and the Space Subcommittee. During the 103d Congress,
we lived through the highs and the lows of this program. There was a
call for the project to be redesigned, and space station funding passed
on the House floor by one single vote.
In early 1994, NASA made significant changes in the way it conducted
business. They streamlined the program. For the first time, they named
a single overall prime contractor for the space station, and they
brought proven private sector know-how, decision-making, and
competitiveness into the program.
Russia joined our international partnership, a partnership that
already included Japan, Canada, and member countries of the European
Space Agency. This provided us the opportunity to use selected Russian
hardware, to learn from their experience in extended space flight, and
to use the MIR space station for testing and training purposes. We all
witnessed the successful results of this partnership earlier this month
with the MIR docking.
The new, redesigned station, with Boeing as the prime contractor,
forced NASA to trim costs and develop a program that was both fiscally
and scientifically sound. The space station budget has been capped at
$2.1 billion annually. This is not an open-ended obligation, Mr.
Chairman. We will reach completion in 2002.
In 1994, continued funding for the station passed overwhelmingly,
highlighting the success and bipartisan support for this program.
Mr. Chairman, with the station, we will promote international
cooperation and the peaceful exploration of space. We will spawn new
industries, new products and new jobs. We will give rise to
unprecedented research capabilities, and we will provide incentives to
our students to pursue scientific professions if America remains
dedicated to preserving its scientific cutting edge.
Since we began the race for space in the 1950's, this Nation has
taken upon itself the role of leader, not only in space exploration but
also in space-based research.
For my colleagues who are looking for a down-to-earth, practical
reason to support this station, here is one for you: your mother, your
daughter, your sister, or your wife. Because of the unique microgravity
environment the station provides for research, new and exciting
approaches to diagnosing and treating breast cancer, ovarian cancer,
and osteoporosis are being investigated in space labs in ways that
simply are not possible on Earth.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, as a result of an amendment that I worked on
that set aside funding specifically for women's health care research,
for the first time on the recent MIR mission female rats were used to
study the relationship of long-term space existence on the development
of osteoporosis. Biomedical research on Earth, working hand-in-hand
with space-based research, will help eradicate this terrible disease
that affects our mothers.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that some of the cuts in this bill
are obviously acceptable in the interest of deficit reduction. But the
problem with this bill is that it simply goes too far. It makes what I
consider to be savage cuts in housing. It contains a wholesale assault
on our ability to protect public health and to protect clean water and
clean air and our natural resources, and it contains unnecessary
reductions in veterans' health care, all to free up more money in this
grand scheme to provide significant tax reduction for people who make
$200,000 a year or more.
I do not believe that is right. I would urge at the end of the day
after we have had at it on the amendments that unless this bill is
improved markedly, and I do not think it can be--I think it is beyond
help almost--I would urge you to vote against it.
I have great respect for the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis],
he is a good friend of mine, but I do not see any reason why we ought
to use this vehicle to really crunch in a serious way our ability to
protect public health from toxic chemicals.
If you take a look at this bill, fully one-third of this bill, which
is supposed to be simply a budget bill, contains illegitimate
legislative language that prevents the Government from enforcing the
law to protect the health of workers, to protect the right of
neighborhoods to know what kind of toxic chemicals are being infused
into the atmosphere, to protect the public's right to drink safe clean
water, and it engages in all kinds of Rube Goldberg operations in the
veterans' health care area in order to squeeze out yet more money for
tax cuts for the rich.
This is not a fair bill. It is not a decent bill. It ought to be
defeated.
{time} 1245
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 11/2 minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], ranking minority member of the
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], my good friend who has done yeoman's
work on trying to protect the poor and the vulnerable and the working
people and our senior citizens in this bill.
Mr. Chairman, the trouble is we just do not have the votes to protect
the people that the Republican majority wants to cut in order to
provide a tremendous tax break to the richest and most powerful
interests in this country, and at the same time, pump more and more
funds into the defense bill.
It would be one thing if all of these bills were looked at with any
kind of sensibility, but what we have seen is a $7.6 billion increase
in the defense bill alone as it pertains to equipment purchases. We are
buying B-2's that the Navy and Air Force say they do not need. We are
buying F-22's that they say they do not need. The Navy says it really
does not need this new submarine, but we are buying that anyway.
But, Mr. Chairman, when it comes to housing, we are going to go out
and get public housing, raise rents on our senior citizens, and turn
around and say that we are going to try to protect the homeless by
cutting the homeless program in this country by 50 percent.
When all sorts of Cain was raised about that, the Republicans are
going
[[Page H 7826]]
to come back in and say they are going to put another $1 million back
into the homeless program after 7 years, but they are going to take the
money out of assisted housing in order to fund the homeless program.
We are going to create more homelessness and put the money back into
homelessness. This is one of the most half-cocked, hair-brained schemes
I have ever seen. The authorizing committee ought to have had hearings;
made decisions about whether or not we ought to put funds into the
section 8 program, versus public housing, versus assisted housing.
There are good decisions that could be made and we do not have one of
them that is located in this bill.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Flake], the ranking minority member on the Subcommittee on
Domestic and International Monetary Policy.
(Mr. FLAKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
2099.
Mr. Chairman, I think all of us realize that these cuts are targeted
to the most vulnerable people in our population, those persons who are
in the greatest need, those persons who cannot stand the lethal blow
that this particular bill makes available for them.
Mr. Chairman, it is the highlight of arrogance, in my opinion, that
we devastate possibilities for community revitalization, that we take
those persons who are in need of government support as it relates to
section 8 rental assistance and that we reduce the amount available to
them, while at the same time raising the amount of rent that they will
have to pay.
Mr. Chairman, the height of hypocrisy is reflected in the fact that
on this day we unveil a memorial for the Korean War veterans, while at
the same time are cutting millions of dollars from the veterans'
programs.
As a nation, we cannot afford to continue to allow people to live in
substandard housing, allow people to live at a standard that is not
qualitative, so that all of our people understand that they have a
place in this great democracy of ours.
Mr. Chairman, where is our compassion? If we are compassionate, we
will vote this bill down.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], a member of the
subcommittee.
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, when I refer to H.R. 2099 in one word
that word is ``commitment.'' Congress has made a commitment to the
people of our Nation to balance the budget and this bill takes a large
step in that direction--providing more than $10 billion in deficit
reduction. Yes, Uncle Sam can be put on a diet and the Appropriations
Committee is his personal trainer.
But Congress also committed itself to end duplication of programs and
eliminate the never-ending source of redtape. This bill eliminates
outlived bureaucracies and consolidates several programs, with the
President's blessing, in an effort to improve services such as better
housing for those who need assistance.
Last, the bill fulfills our Nation's commitment to veterans. Our
veteran's health is of utmost importance. That is why the VA medical
care account was the only account in the bill not to receive a
reduction. Assuming that the chairman's upcoming amendment is
approved--and I urge my colleagues to support it--the VA medical care
account will increase by $562 million more than last year's funding
level. But that is not all. The bill provides increases over fiscal
year 1995 funding for compensation and pensions, readjustment benefits
for education and training, and veterans insurance. The bill also
provides funding for medical research, the National Cemetery System,
and State veterans' cemeteries, among other essential programs for
veterans.
As a member of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, I can tell you
that this was not an easy bill to draft--and I thank and applaud the
chairman and his staff for their dedication to this task. But it is a
bill that makes priorities and fulfills our commitment to the people of
this Nation to spend their money wisely. That is a promise made and a
promise kept by this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Waters], a member of the Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. It is
fundamentally flawed. It would ravage communities, uproot families, and
disrupt the lives of thousands of Americans. We must reform public
housing, but Republicans have gone about it entirely wrong.
This bill would increase rents paid by residents recieving section 8
vouchers from 30 to 32 percent of adjusted income. The average voucher
family has a yearly income just under $8,000. This increase would have
the affect of taking away $140 per year from these families.
It would also decresae the work incentive for able-bodied adults.
It would zero out community development banks, a bi-partisan programs
which generates private-sector economic development.
This bill reduces housing for seniors, for the sick, and for the
needy. It legislates a series of changes which would greatly inhibit
our ability to house Americans, expand opoprtunities, and develop
economically. It is extreme and it should be defeated. I urge defeat of
this bill.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Roybal-Allard], a member of the Subcommittee on Housing
and Community Opportunity.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill.
Mr. Chairman, the cuts contained in the Republican VA-HUD
appropriations bill are devastating for working American families. For
example, the community development financial institution fund, which
helps communities and individuals empower themselves, will be defunded.
The CDFI fund was created because residents and entrepreneurs from
low and moderate income communities unfairly experience barriers in
obtaining credit.
Many do not qualify for loans to purchase a home or start a business
because they lack conventional credit histories. As a result,
individuals and communities cannot achieve economic prosperity and
self-reliance.
CDFI fund resources leverage private sector funds and provide
assistance and training to community development financial
institutions.
The CDFI fund is a powerful tool that creates jobs, restores hope,
and provides a better way of life for those desiring a piece of the
American dream.
Only last year the CDFI received the near unanimous support of
Democrats and Republicans. Vote ``no'' on the VA-HUD appropriations
bill.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk specifically about cuts in
this bill which concern me greatly; cuts to the Mission to Planet
Earth, a critical NASA program. The President requested $1.34 billion.
This bill, unfortunately, includes only $1 billion. That is a lot of
money, but it is a very significant reduction from the request and from
the level adopted by the Committee on Science this week.
The committee, on Tuesday, reported a bill that authorizes $1.27
billion for Mission to Planet Earth. This is $272 million above the
reported appropriation amount.
Mr. Chairman, we should restore that money, if the allocation to this
appropriation measure was not so constrained. I understand the problem
of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Stokes] with respect to the funds available, but this program
is a critical program for the future, not only of the space program,
but for the future of the ability of those of us on Earth to understand
better our environment and our weather.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the committee would see fit to
increasing this sum as this bill moves through.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition
to H.R. 2099. It represents a political meat ax, rather than a
responsible
[[Page H 7827]]
carving knife, as we approach the budget process.
Mr. Chairman, there is a 23-percent cut in housing programs,
representing more than $5 billion; representing the elimination of
personal programs such as section 8, which helps disadvantaged people
get housing, and HOPE homeownership grants that allow people to pursue
the American dream.
This bill represents a 46-percent cut in housing for the elderly. How
some Members could say we are helping the elderly is beyond me. The
elderly will pay between an average of 400 and 600 additional dollars
per year for senior housing.
Mr. Chairman, this bill represents a 54-percent cut for low-income
assisted housing programs, the working poor of our country, and a 49-
percent cut in homeless programs, which means that more Americans will
be living in cardboard boxes and laying out along the street side.
Critically, it represents a 48-percent cut in construction and
improvement in veterans' facilities, which means our Nation's veterans
will continue to see inadequate treatment and work in inadequate
facilities.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York [Ms. Velazquez].
(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today out of a sense of deep
sadness and outrage. Yet again, the majority brings before this body an
attack on children, the elderly, and the poor.
The cuts in this bill are criminal. Funding for low-income housing is
slashed by $7 billion. Homeless assistance; public and assisted
housing; housing for the elderly, the disabled, and AIDS victims; and
the FHA multifamily insurance program all suffer steep rollbacks. Many
others, such as the Drug Elimination Program, are eliminated
altogether. These cuts, Mr. Chairman, aren't about numbers--they're
about human beings. There's a human tragedy behind every dollar of
these reductions.
On any given night last winter, there were 600,000 men, women, and
sometimes children living on the streets. This bill's $540 million cut
in the McKinney program would mean that hundreds of thousands more will
join them this winter. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 2099.
There is too much pain behind this bill.
A $700 million cut in public housing operating subsidies, and a $2.3
billion reduction in the public housing capital budget isn't an
abstraction. These cuts mean delays in both basic maintenance and major
repairs; less security services; and the elimination of essential
social services. For 3 million public housing residents, the reductions
translate into deteriorating buildings, greater insecurity, and fewer
opportunities for economic advancement.
Ending the Drug Elimination Program isn't about cutting wasteful
pork-barrel projects. In New York City, the program funds 435 housing
police officers who patrol the grounds and hallways of New York's
public housing developments. These beat cops would be lost.
This is only a partial list of the many tragedies that would result
from this bill. At some point in this appropriations process,
reasonable minds and compassionate hearts must prevail. I urge my
colleagues to reach that point in this bill.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Vento], a member of the Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity.
(Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I certainly rise in opposition to this bill,
because it affects the people we represent.
Mr. Chairman, what do they want from us? What do they expect from
this bill? They expect decent, affordable, sanitary shelter. They
expect environmental justice. They expect us to try and respond to what
their needs are.
We obviously have a budget problem, that is dug deeper by the tax
breaks that our Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle
seem to want to advance and dig the hole deeper with our Federal budget
deficit. We have to pull in the belt, but we do not have to do it on
the basis of the poorest of the poor, the working people, or families.
{time} 1300
They want shelter; they want a green environment. They want the same
small good things of life. People want us to take the knowledge we have
and use it to provide for their need and protection.
There are a lot of people walking around who have got their heads up
in the stars. They want to look too and fund the space station. The
votes are here for that.
Frankly, to me, it is the alchemists project of the 20th century
trying to do something of questionable value at the very same time we
have got real serious problems right here in our communities. We have
got to advance not just on defeating the budget deficit, the fiscal
deficit, but we have got
