Emergency Housing Protections and Relief Act of 2020
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is the second time the House will vote on the provisions in this bill, and the Chair just laid that out. Every single one of these provisions was included in the so-called HEROES Act, a partisan attempt that we debated last month.
Well, just like that $3 trillion grab bag, this bill will have no chance in the Senate. It will not be signed by the President. At the conclusion of this debate, we will be right back where we started.
I say to my colleagues, why not try something new, try bipartisanship. It worked in the CARES Act and the other four COVID-19 response bills that we had, and I tell you it could work here, as well.
But rather than work across the aisle, the Democratic leadership, gave us no advance warning this bill would be debated on the House floor, and rather than work across the aisle, my colleagues jammed through the bill the day the Rules Committee held a meeting on five other bills.
Moreover, the Rules Committee reported out a closed rule on this bill. Now, let's explain that to America what a closed bill or closed rule means. There are three types of rules:
An ``open'' rule, meaning you can add any amendment that you want.
A ``structured'' rule, which says, you know what, we are going to narrow those amendments to those areas that we think are most pertinent to the bill.
And then a ``closed'' rule, which says you get nothing. You don't have any say in trying to change this or improve this bill. It doesn't matter. We don't want to hear from the minority. We don't even want to hear from our own Members what ideas they might have.
So, notwithstanding there have been numerous concerns raised about this bill, there will be no opportunity to amend it. There will be no opportunity to strengthen it or to improve what is already, in my opinion, a bad bill.
This outcome will only stifle debate. This outcome will only hurt the bill's chances for any type of actual success. But clearly that is not the goal here. It is an attempt to find another wedge issue to divide us.
Nevertheless, I would like to emphasize that Republicans and I are committed to working together to support efforts that are targeted and effective in responding to this devastating pandemic. When we work together there is nothing that can stand in our way. The CARES Act is proof of that, as well as all the other response bills that we had.
As I mentioned earlier, Congress acted swiftly back in March to pass the CARES Act. The CARES Act provided robust financial support to individuals and small businesses impacted by COVID-19. The CARES Act also increased funding for HUD, Housing and Urban Development, and its assisted housing programs by approximately 25 percent over its appropriated budget.
For renters, the CARES Act provided critical protections through a Federal moratorium on evictions for residents from Federally assisted properties. This moratorium, which lasts through the summer, is in addition to any State or locally enacted eviction moratoria. I know that in Michigan, in my home State, there has been that moratoria, as well.
For homeowners, the CARES Act created a new forbearance option for Federally backed borrowers directly or indirectly impacted by COVID-19 financial hardship.
What does ``forbearance'' mean? Forbearance means you don't have to pay that month; you can attach those payments at the end. You have a time out from having to go and pay your mortgage. Borrowers can automatically claim up to 1 year of payments protection penalty free.
This historic relief has worked. In fact, it was negotiated out in a bipartisan manner. It has been stable and stabilized and has actually slightly declined nationwide forbearance rates as well as rent collections largely consistent with pre-COVID trends. This is proof that the CARES Act--a bipartisan bill that I think had four or maybe six total votes against it, some from both parties--works. This is proof that bipartisanship and consensus approach has been the right one in the past, and it ought to be the right one now.
Of course, we should never accept good enough. As an answer it comes to providing housing and economic security for our Nation's most vulnerable families. However, the bill today that we are considering, like the bill that we considered last month, goes in the opposite direction. Instead of following the CARES Act model to focus on those hit hardest by the pandemic, this bill simply plays politics. This bill dusts off an old Democratic grab bag wish list of policy goals predating and unrelated to COVID-19 under the guise of relief, all of which are nonstarters in the Senate, let's be clear.
If we really want to start a real conversation about affordable housing in this country, let's start with the facts. The fact is that far too many large, high-cost metropolitan areas' local decisions and regulations have made the cost of housing in those areas too high for many hardworking families. We should not be rewarding these high-cost cities for decades of self-made mistakes with more taxpayer dollars. We should be looking at ways to support families, not cities and municipalities and housing authorities, but families to meet those challenges that this pandemic has forced upon them.
Republicans have and will continue to support targeted and efficient aid that goes to those who are most in need. We support solutions for those that have been impacted by the pandemic that are, one, administered efficiently. That is a key. For you as a taxpayer I would assume you would want to have that.
Two, targeted to those who need it most. That is the safety net we are trying to provide.
And, three, include much-needed oversight.
This bill fails those tests.
Let me give you one example of why this bill fails all parts of that test. Section 101 of the bill creates a new $100 billion--that is with a B--``emergency rental assistance'' grant program for individuals or families ``at risk of homelessness,'' a policy both sides certainly do and can support.
But the bill takes the policy to the next level, making funding available to individuals making up to 120 percent not of the poverty level but of their area median income.
So, what does that mean? That means that an individual living in San Francisco making $131,000 would qualify for a homelessness grant.
Now, I am just a simple guy from the Midwest in Michigan, but making $131,000 a year qualifies you for a homelessness grant? Oh, by the way, what does that get you? $6,012 per month in rental assistance. $6,000 a month in rental assistance.
This is not help; it is scandalous. And I don't understand how any of my colleagues could defend that.
Well, additionally, this bill spends more than $119 billion--again, with a B--in new funding for HUD programs, new funding, yet the bill fails to include a single meaningful permanent reform to any of the HUD programs. Moreover, the bill fails to provide any oversight for that new funding.
To that end, figuring out how HUD will spend a 240 percent increase in its budget is a critical element to ensuring that any new funding is helping real families who are in need, who are struggling and not getting just lost in some bureaucratic shuffle in Washington, D.C., or at some metropolis's housing authority.
In fact, Chairwoman Waters said it best when talking about the CARES Act: ``Since taxpayers are footing the bill, all Americans deserve to examine any and all information related to the administration, disbursement, and utilization of these funds.''
Boy, I wish I had the ability to put in an amendment to do just that, but we don't have that opportunity today. So, I agree. I agree with her on that, and we need to have that transparency.
That is why Republicans stand ready to work together to find consensus on meaningful reforms and ways to help those households deal with the challenges of this awful pandemic.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to take a look at this. We know it is a recycled partisan bill. We know that it is not going to go anywhere in the Senate. We know that it is not going to be signed into law. Let's have a real conversation about the issues, not just pick another political football.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, there was not a granting on the front end of that. Will that time be counted against the majority's time?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that.
I just wanted to clarify and make sure that we are all on the same page.
And I might add that I deeply respect my colleague and friend from Georgia, and we have worked on some issues.
I will note that HUD has not been able to get the money out the door to those families that need the help with what they have already been given, and yet we are trying to put more into that pipeline.
Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the remaining time on both sides.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, may I also inquire as to how much time was taken off of the last--for the previous speaker?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I do have an inquiry of the majority as to how many more speakers she may have.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let's not be Pollyannaish. The facts are facts. Yes, our economy, for the first time in ever--certainly, in the modern era--came to a screeching halt, not because of bad business decisions, not because of malicious or malfeasance or illegal activities, much like we saw in the 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 financial crisis that started in housing.
We don't know exactly where our recovery is going to go. We have gotten some good signs. But, again, we cannot be overly optimistic without being prepared. But facts are facts, and here is one fact: In April, we saw historic declines in new home purchases. I shouldn't say ``new homes.'' These were contracts to purchase homes.
In May, we saw a historic rebound of 44.3 percent. Why did that happen? Because in April, both buyers and sellers were sidelined by this pandemic. Why did we see this rebound in May? Because the American people have optimism, as well. That and basically zero interest rates from the Fed probably helped, too.
But that is the point. We have been coming together to try to turn this economy around.
Well, in this bill today, we are told that we can't wait. This bill can't wait. Yet, what you need to know is, this bill is not ready. And I will give you a perfect example of this.
Page 71, section 105 of the bill that was debated in the Rules Committee that had been part of the original HEROES Act, the so-called HEROES Act, from a month ago, was part of my colleague from Iowa Mrs. Axne's standalone bill. It actually referenced a rural housing program as having $25 trillion, not $25 million as it had been intended, but $25 trillion in that.
Clearly, this bill has been a cut-and-paste job all the way along. It was rushed when it was the HEROES Act, the so-called HEROES Act, because that was part of the grab bag that was out there. It was rushed when my colleague, Mrs. Axne, introduced it. It was rushed now in this bill.
So, it does beg the question: What else got missed, Mr. Speaker?
Well, here is what else: We are told that the money has run out. We have run out of the money that we have appropriated. What you need to know is that all the billions of dollars that were allocated have not yet been spent.
But, wait, we are told that this was spent already, and it isn't enough. Well, what you need to know is that they want to create new programs to spend hundreds of billions of dollars with zero new reforms or oversight put into this bill. None. That is not responsible.
While you were told that this bill is only going to go to the needy, the poor, the disenfranchised--after all, this is a homelessness program--what you need to know is they are going to send $6,000 per month--$6,000 per month--to someone making $131,000 in the Speaker's district--$131,000.
That person qualifies for a homelessness program? I can tell you, not in west Michigan. I can tell you, not virtually anywhere else in the country.
I don't understand how my colleagues, with a straight face, can say that this is all about homelessness and all about helping those who have been disadvantaged and have not had a break in life. Well, $131,000 a year is a pretty darn good break in life, I think.
Mr. Speaker, I wish I had an opportunity to amend this bill. I would have some amendments. I wish we were doing a modified rule. It would even allow some of those amendments. Yet, here we are today, no input from anybody other than what the Speaker's office and the chair's office had said is going to be in this bill.
We are plowing ahead with a bill that we know will not see the light of day when it hits the Senate.
By the way, I am a little confused when the chair early on admonished me and said I should go and negotiate with the Senate about the bill that had been passed previously.
So, I say this a little tongue in cheek, but anybody who has watched ``Schoolhouse Rock!'' knows the House passes their legislation; the Senate passes their legislation; and then it comes together, if we are going to negotiate it out, not in the middle of this process.
Why not negotiate and amend the bill that is before us today, where it properly should be happening?
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, this is a serious, serious issue for our country. I know this. My family has been in construction and in housing for now three--going on a fourth--generations. We have seen it. We have seen the ups and downs. My grandfather, my namesake, started in the Depression era. My dad continued it through the 1970s, through the 1980s, into the 1990s. Then, I started getting involved. I have lived through a couple of economic downturns myself, trying to keep a family company afloat, trying to provide housing and jobs.
Mr. Speaker, here is what we need to do, in my opinion. We need to negotiate in good faith. This bill is not an attempt to do that today. I am disappointed in that. I wish we could, but I think, once again, we are seeing politics triumphing over people. We are seeing political footballs take the place of real policy issues.
When your objective is nothing but November, guess what? The American people lose. That is the shame in today's debate.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I know that there are some people on the other side of the aisle who are a little uncomfortable with this bill but don't feel they can vote ``no.'' I wish they had the courage of their convictions. Today, I will be voting ``no'' and encourage my colleagues as well.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUIZENGA. I am currently opposed to the bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit would remedy some of the shortfalls in H.R. 7301 and would add some bipartisanship to this legislation. This motion only strengthens this legislation and increases the chance of this bill making it through the Senate and being signed into law.
This amendment would simply add four provisions to the bill, each of which would reduce bureaucracy and increase oversight of these funds so that they reach the people who need them swiftly.
First, this amendment would harmonize the definitions of homelessness between HUD and the Department of Education. For too long, HUD has failed to think of the children who lack a permanent and stable home, shifting funding away from this vulnerable population, who, as the Department of Education acknowledges, is, in practice and in fact, homeless. Our amendment permanently ends that disparate treatment of the kids and makes them fully eligible for the substantial increase in funding at HUD under this bill.
Second, the amendment would include the bipartisan Yes in My Backyard Act, H.R. 4351, which passed the House by voice vote earlier this year. This provision would strengthen the oversight in this legislation and compel high-cost localities to consider the local regulations that have been put in place that increase housing costs and put increased rent and homeownership barriers on American families. Getting rid of these barriers would help cities all over America build more housing and lower costs for everyone.
Third, this amendment would get rid of the bureaucratic red tape currently in the bill that prevents some of our most accomplished and successful housing and addiction treatment service providers from being eligible to receive funds. Why the majority would want to disqualify shelters and other housing service providers that make it their mission to treat individuals who are struggling with alcoholism or drug addiction makes no sense at all to me.
Finally, this amendment would ensure that these funds would be directed to where they are needed: to the Nation's taxpayers and their dependents who are struggling right now. Basic common sense says that we should not be spending money on those who are unlawfully present in the United States at a time when millions of Americans and legal residents are out of work, overmatched with their bills, and fighting to do more with less.
Combined, these provisions would help make a bad bill better and give greater accountability and focus to the nearly $200 billion in new, unpaid-for, untargeted, unaccounted-for spending in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source