Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 2007

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I am indeed honored to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 3521, the Pu blic Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 2007; and I want to thank Mr. Sires and Chairman Frank for their dedication and commitment to resolving this, at times, perplexing and confusing process known as asset management to which our public housing agencies have been struggling to adapt for several years now. This struggle has been made all the worse by the Department of Housing and Urban Development's overly prescriptive guidance on some issues, lack of guidance on other issues, and contra dictory or insufficient guidance on everything in between.

I think we can all agree that public housing agencies can be better at managing our public housing resources and that asset management has the potential to improve how public housing is managed nationwide. However, in examining the issues behind the implementation of asset management, it has become clear that HUD's one-size-fits-all approach simply won't work. In addition, the Department's willful disregard of existing statute as a part of the i mplementation is eroding the trust of housing agencies' residents and some Members of this Congress.

In light of the Department's actions and the need to proceed with asset management, my friend from New Jersey who introduced this bill, H.R. 3521, maintains and respects the negotiated rulemaking agreed to by all parties, housing agencies, their industry representatives and HUD and still requires housing agencies to convert to asset management by 2011.

However, the bill settles three outstanding issu es that have slowed the implementation of asset management: number one, the amount of management fees; number two, the ability of housing agencies to use a portion of their capital funds while operating expenses as allowed under statute; and number three, the kind of housing agencies that must convert to asset management. These are all critical issues that must be decided before 2011.

H.R. 3521 would require negotiated rulemaking to settle the issue of management fees. The fees that the Department is at tempting to impose on housing agencies are, in many cases, insufficient and will not meet the needs of housing agencies that have been historically underfunded.

In addition, these fees appear to have been arrived at in an arbitrary manner. Negotiated rulemaking on the subject of management fees would allow the Nation's housing managers to work with HUD to determine a reasonable fee for managing public housing. Because the date for full implementation of asset management would stay the same, negotiated r ulemaking would not delay or stall conversion to asset management.

On the use of capital funds for operating expenses, the statute is very clear. Housing agencies have the ability to move 20 percent of their capital funds to their operating fund. However, in its guidance, the Department has disregarded this plain-as-day statute and has limited capital fund fungibility to 10 percent. The bill simply asserts what is already in law.

Large housing agencies will benefit the most from asset management due to the economies of scale that will result from streamlining their operations. By raising the threshold for conversion from housing agencies that manage 250 units to those that manage 500 units, the bill simply ensures that only those housing agencies with the ability to benefit from asset management are required to comply with it.

Furthermore, the bill makes sure that asset management does not stifle tenant participation and resident organization. Public housing residents are very concerned about how asset management will impact their ability to participate and to organize. The bill ensures that the ability of residents to remain involved and to be represented is not impinged upon.

Mr. Chairman, this bill does not undo, reverse, or undermine the original negotiated rulemaking between housing agencies and the Department. It simply settles four outstanding issues so that asset management can move forward.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I rise almost in disbelief that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle, led by Mrs. Bachmann, would dare bring to this floor a motion that basically would say to us that the Federal Government cannot direct this issue on Federal property.

We own these public housing authorities. The people who are here live under the rules that we develop for living in public housing. We are confronted with the problem in America, and that problem is, unfortunately, and painfully, we have poor people who are isolated, and they find their power and their strength in the gun.

There are far too many guns raging every night in America in public housing authorities, whether it is Los Ange les or New York or down south.

What you find are young jobless men in gangs who shoot throughout the

[Page: H1056]

night where people are ducking under their beds, afraid to open their doors. Many of these public housing authorities are on main thoroughfares, next to shopping centers, on your way to the airport.

These bullets don't limit themselves to inside these public housing authorities. They could end up shooting people who are passing through the area.

I understand, perhaps, the argument that one wo uld make about constitutional rights. While I disagree with that, I think it is foolhardy and foolish to talk about we don't have the authority to determine what happens on our property.

There are those in this room who would shout down public housing authorities and not give people a place to live at all, because they said there is too much violence, there is too much joblessness, there is too much violence. There are those of us who have worked for years not only to clean up these public housing author ities but to make sure that the people who live there are abiding by the law.

I am in disbelief that anyone could believe it's all right to continue what is happening in America today in many of these public housing authorities where young people are dying. Of course we don't like it. Of course we are appalled at it. We are pained with it. But give me a break. All of us are much more responsible than this motion to recommit would have us believe.

I would yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker and Members, our majority leader just put before us a motion that I think we sh ould all support. It is unreasonable for us to think that somehow we are going to not give this House the opportunity to provide leadership on crime.

There are Members on the opposite side of the aisle who would identify themselves as being law and order people, of wanting to get rid of guns and crime. Well, this is an opportunity to show where you stand. Do you stand with us to keep Americans safe? Do you stand with us to make the rules on Federal property, or are you going to vote us down?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source