Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I come to the floor today to introduce the Housing Voucher Improvement Act of 2002. I am pleased that this legislation is being co-sponsored by a number of my colleagues on the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs: Senators Reed, Schumer, Carper, Stabenow, Corzine, and Akaka. This legislation will make important changes to the housing voucher program, a program that serves over 1.5 million low-income American families. These 1.5 million families are part of a growing number of people in this country who are unable to afford rising housing costs. As we learned in hearings before the Committee earlier this year, for too many people, the paycheck they bring home is too small to cover housing and other expenses. Low-income families are forced to live in crowded, unsafe conditions or forgo other necessities to make ends meet. In order to ensure that families have decent, safe and affordable housing, the government provides assistance in a variety of ways including public housing, section 8 vouchers, FHA mortgage insurance, and homeless assistance programs. While we have provided funding for these programs over the years, more must be done. It is estimated that over 14 million working families in this country pay more than they can afford for housing. In addition, 1.7 million families live in substandard housing--housing that is unsafe or overcrowded. Homelessness continues to be a major problem, with approximately 2 million people experiencing homelessness at some point this year. These statistics show that millions of Americans are unable to afford the most basic of needs, housing. The solution to the affordable housing crisis is not found in any one program or in any one policy. We must work on a variety of fronts to combat this crisis. We must preserve the affordable housing that already exists; we must build new affordable housing; and, we must ensure that the housing programs we have in place work effectively to house families in need. The Housing Voucher Improvement Act is not intended to address all of these needs, but it is an important step forward in making sure that the voucher program works to provide the greatest range of housing opportunities to the lowest income Americans. The bill I am introducing today is intended to work towards three objectives: ensuring that the voucher program works effectively and that all families receiving vouchers are able to find adequate housing; providing families with vouchers the widest range of possibilities as to where to live; and assisting families receiving housing assistance in attaining self-sufficiency. The voucher program has provided millions of Americans with the opportunity to live in safe and decent homes. However, as housing markets tighten, families are finding it more difficult to use housing vouchers. This difficulty may result from a lack of rental housing, available housing being too expensive, or too few landlords who accept tenants with housing vouchers. The Housing Voucher Improvement Act will give local public housing authorities a number of tools to assist voucher holders in finding housing and to make the voucher program attractive to private market landlords. To help people find decent and safe housing, this bill will give public housing agencies the flexibility to use a limited amount of their funds to provide search assistance to voucher holders. For many people who receive vouchers, additional assistance, such as housing counseling, transportation services, or security deposit funds may make the difference in finding a place to live. This bill will also increase housing opportunities for voucher holders by allowing public housing agencies to increase the amount that the voucher is worth where a significant number of families given vouchers are unable to find adequate housing. Provisions are also included in the bill to make it easier to use vouchers in housing developed with HOME funds or Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Ensuring that vouchers can be used in these developments will greatly expand housing opportunities for extremely low-income families. In order to operate a successful program, enough apartments must be available for people with vouchers. Therefore, vouchers must be an attractive option for landlords. Towards that end, the Housing Voucher Improvement Act allows public housing agencies to use their funds to reach out to local property owners to increase landlord participation in the vouchers program. It also scales penalties for inspection violations to the magnitude of the violation and helps guarantee timely payments to apartment owners by creating an incentive for housing authorities to use automatic payment systems for interested owners. This bill will also allow public housing authorities to streamline inspections while still ensuring that housing is decent, safe and sanitary. All of these provisions will make vouchers easier to use for private-market apartment owners. This bill also creates a new use for vouchers, allowing housing authorities to couple a limited number of vouchers with housing being constructed with HOME dollars, tax credits, or other funds. These ``thrifty vouchers'' will cost less than regular vouchers, allowing more families to be served. While most of this bill will help to expand housing opportunities for people searching for housing, one critical component of housing policy is self-sufficiency. Housing assistance is key in moving people from welfare to work. A stable home is needed for job stability. While this seems intuitive, I do not rely on intuition alone in making this assertion. Recent studies, including one done by the Manpower Research Demonstration Corporation, show that people receiving housing assistance are more successful in moving from welfare to work. They had higher wages and retained employment for longer periods of time. This bill strengthens the role that housing plays in self-sufficiency by providing greater opportunities for voucher holders to become involved in educational and employment programs. We also authorize welfare to work vouchers, which will strengthen relations between housing and welfare agencies. Given the role that housing assistance can play in promoting self-sufficiency, greater confidence between housing and welfare agencies makes good common sense. I introduce this bill today with the hope that it will strengthen one of the most important federal housing programs. People given vouchers should be able to find adequate housing, and should have greater choices in where to live. And those families already receiving housing assistance should be able to access programs that will assist them in meeting their educational and employment goals. There is widespread consensus that the changes made in this bill will assist in these efforts. This bill is supported by a wide range of organizations including public housing agencies, industry groups, and advocacy organizations. The bill is strongly supported by the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, the Enterprise Foundation, the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the National Apartment Association, the National Affordable Housing Management Association and others. I want to take a moment to thank my staff for their hard work on this bill, and I want to specifically thank Mary Grace Folwell, a fellow from the American Planning Association, who has been crucial in working on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation and to recognize the important role that housing assistance plays in the lives of millions of Americans. Madam President, I ask unanimous that letters of support and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. It would be one way of trying to deal with these amendments and dispose of them. A request of that sort ought to be carefully considered, certainly. We have this problem. Members have amendments pending. We have been trying to move the amendments forward. We have not been able to do that. I know how frustrated they are. I share their frustration. (Mrs. CARNAHAN assumed the chair.)

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield, it is interesting, in the debate we just had, until the Senator from Michigan underscored the fact, it was not pointed out that we provide independent funding in this legislation for the Financial Accounting Standards Board, which has the responsibility of setting these accounting standards. Their problem in the past has been that they are voluntarily funded from the industry. They have to go to them and beg for money in order to carry out their activities. And if the industry thinks they are going to do a ruling that is contrary to what they want, then they are not as willing to support their activity. We eliminate that in this bill because we have a mandatory fee that must be paid by all issuers, and the Board will be funded out of that money. So that, in itself, is a very important and significant step in establishing the independence of the Accounting Standards Board.

Mr. SARBANES. It is a very clever trick, but you haven't made your point. There are other Members here with amendments that are very important to them which they are trying to have considered. We have been trying to process those amendments in an orderly way. The Senator arrives on the scene and apparently thinks, well, there should be a special set of rules for the Senator to do his amendment. So he just now tried to jump ahead of other people, and a reasonable objection was made. And I think it ought to have been made. The Senator from Arizona comes in, and, all of a sudden, there is going to be a special set of rules to deal with his amendment. The Senator doesn't even recognize what is in the bill, which does try to address to some extent this problem with independent funding and FASB that this legislation provides for--which everyone agrees is long overdue and is an important contribution. But we have these people lined up here who want to do amendments. We have the Edwards amendment, we have the Levin amendment, and we have a whole list of people with amendments. We have been trying to process those amendments, and we have not been able to do it. As one who is down here trying to work overtime to get these amendments processed, I want to very strongly register that point. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES. And denies everybody else.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield? The Senator directed a question.

Mr. SARBANES. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a response to his question?

Mr. SARBANES. I wanted to respond at this point because the Senator just directed a question. We are not trying to prevent a vote on your amendment. We have been trying repeatedly to get votes on these amendments. Senator Edwards has had an amendment pending in here for now more than a day. We can't get a vote on it. Senator Levin has had an amendment pending. We have a list of people who want to offer amendments. We have been trying to work through these amendments. Now the Senator has come with his amendment. There are a lot of amendments around here on which people are trying to get votes. I think they are entitled to those votes. I know you have a problem. But I take some umbrage as sort of having it placed on my shoulders. In fact, I think that is totally inaccurate, and I just want to make sure I put that on the record.

Mr. SARBANES. No. That doesn't approve anything. The Senator wants his amendment----

Mr. SARBANES. No. You haven't made your point.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. The Senator from Kentucky is very skilled. I watched him on these television programs. I know he is very good when the question is put to him to give the answer he wants to give, even though it is not directed to the question. Obviously, I will have to go through that same experience on the floor of the Senate now.

Mr. SARBANES. Why would I support a request like that? Surely the Senator from Kentucky is just making a joke on the floor of the Senate by making that inquiry. That must be apparent to all. I appreciate the Senator's sense of humor in that regard. I also appreciate his indication, just a moment or two ago, he intends to support the underlying bill. Of course, we are gratified to hear that. I yield the floor and reserve whatever time I may have left. What is the time situation?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. Actually, I will use my own time, and the Senator may reserve his time. We must table this amendment. Otherwise, it becomes an invitation for others to come in and offer second-degree amendments that are not relevant to the bill. This amendment is not relevant to the bill-- nowhere close. If we start this process now, opening up the bill to these nonrelevant amendments, what will happen to the relevant amendments, some of which are germane under cloture and others of which might miss the tight test of germaneness but are relevant material, which are pending, which other colleagues have offered, if they want to get to those amendments? We could have done the Edwards amendment yesterday and moved on to something else, but we came in with a second-degree amendment, not relevant--not only not relevant to the Edwards amendment, not relevant to the bill. Frankly, we are well beyond the point where we at least ought to set aside amendments that have no relevance to the underlying legislation.

Mr. SARBANES. Certainly, I yield.

Mr. SARBANES. No, I would not support that.

Mr. SARBANES. It seems to me there are complicated issues that are raised by Senator McConnell's proposal, and they certainly should have been preceded by hearings in which the pros and cons could have been carefully examined. Madam President, I reiterate my point, this amendment is not relevant to the issue before us. It does not come to us on the basis of any hearings that back up or buttress the proposal. It has not worked through any committee. It certainly has not been recommended by any committee, and there have not even been any hearings, as I understand it, by any committee. At the appropriate time, I will be very strongly supportive of the motion to table that will be offered by the able Senator from Wyoming. This is, of course, the second McConnell second-degree amendment we have had to deal with on this legislation. I hope the Senator from Kentucky does not view this as a kind of fair hunting game to bring forth at each step along the way, whenever there is an opening for a second-degree amendment, whatever sort of pet project he has been harboring in his office for whatever period of time. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, on the energy analysis, I simply point out that the Energy Committee held extended hearings over a long period of time on the energy issue. Then, they did not actually evolve a bill, but they had a very full set of hearings and a lot of recommendations available to be included in an energy package. On the other, I say to my colleague, I forbore from discussing the substance because I did not want to prejudice the Senator on some future occasion by having to go substantively into the weaknesses and deficiencies of the proposal that is before us. Since the time is limited and that would take quite a while to do, I intend to continue to do that out of a sense of consideration to my colleague because presumably, if this amendment is tabled, he will be back visiting with us on another day, perhaps on an appropriate vehicle. I do not know. One would have to wait and see whether that would be realized. Out of some deference of respect for my friend from Kentucky, I simply thought I would not undertake to go into this point by point on the substance because it is really not appropriate. We ought to recognize that and go ahead and table the amendment, and maybe when it finally comes up in an appropriate context, we can then address its substantive weaknesses or strengths. Perhaps at that time it would have evolved into a different animal. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield? The answer was no. I didn't smile. I said no and smiled along with it.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, what is the time situation? I have 2 minutes?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to table this amendment. I do not know what amendment the Senator from Kentucky will come with next out of his grab bag, but he has obviously got a whole set of pet projects that he has been husbanding there in his committee and that he will seek to offer. They are not relevant to this legislation. Here we are again trying to deal with an issue that is relevant. I suggest to the distinguished Senator from Kentucky that he allow the second-degree amendment staffer to take the weekend off so we do not have to continue to go through this exercise of being confronted with these second-degree amendments not relevant to the legislation. We have important legislation to deal with here. We have some good amendments pending out there. This repeated effort to just gum up the works is difficult to understand. In any event, I urge my colleagues on the vote that is shortly to come to vote to table the McConnell amendment.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. That was an effort, of course, to deal with the idea that somehow it might bring causes of action from outside, or somewhere else. So it is limited to the SEC. The SEC, as I understand it, had something like this in place in the past. Is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. I think that is an important point. I simply asked the question in order to stress the fact that that is the way this amendment works. This has been a very carefully worked out amendment. I engaged in an exchange with the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, and the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, the cosponsors of this amendment. I know how careful they have been in trying to craft the amendment and in bringing it here. I think they have done an absolutely first-rate job in sort of focusing the amendment, considering questions that were raised from one source or another, and adjusting it in order to meet them. I think the amendment they have now put before us is an extremely well reasoned amendment, and it ought to command the support of the Members of this body. I very deeply regret that Senator McConnell has added an amendment to the amendment. His amendment really doesn't address this amendment. It doesn't really address the subject matter of this legislation. It is a total diversion. Of course, I presume it will complicate our ability to try to move ahead as we consider amendments. It obviously complicates the consideration of the Edwards-Enzi amendment which is now pending. Furthermore, I understand that under this amendment it can only be enforced by the SEC through an administrative proceeding. Is that correct?