National Housing Law Project Housing Law Bulletin

Even though the Senate declined to include its adopted public housing bill in the HUD funding measure, the House action sets the stage — in the context of a bill providing annual funding not only for HUD programs, but for also veterans, space and the environment, as well as a number of independent agencies — for significant changes to be made to the most important housing program that serves the nation's poorest families.

The public housing authorization bills' route to this point was complicated. For months following last year's adoption of the House bill in May and the Senate bill in September, a deafening silence surrounded the issue of reconciling the two measures. Although sporadic staff level discussions took place, no agreement was reported among the principals until a "discussion draft" emerged in mid-June as a potential amendment to the HUD funding bill. This discussion draft was characterized as the "Mack-Lazio compromise," named for the chairs of the housing authorizing subcommittees in the Senate and the House.³

Although widely considered as a placeholder to reserve the opportunity for dialogue about the public housing changes during the conference on the HUD funding bill, the discussion draft immediately generated controversy among the various interest groups. Even though the initial discussion draft has been supplanted in the appropriations measure by H.R. 2, a brief description of chief elements of the discussion draft may help put into context what lies ahead as a compromise is worked out.⁴

Major Issues to Be Resolved

Targeting. Targeting is widely viewed as the most important and contentious issue to be resolved by the negotiators. The tentative agreement arrived at between Senator Mack and Representative Lazio weakens targeting. Despite a bipartisan letter from 36 members to Senators D'Amato and Sarbanes (Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Banking Committee, respectively),⁵ urging the Senate to hold firm on the targets established in its bill, the published discussion draft provides for 35 percent of public housing units to serve families with incomes at 30 percent of area median income and below, and 70 percent of the total units to serve families at 60 percent of median and below.⁶ For the tenant-based Section 8 program, a minimum of 55 percent of units shall serve families with incomes at 30 percent of area median income and below, and 75 percent of the total units for families at 60 percent of median and below.⁷

The compromise includes "fungibility." That means that a housing authority may reduce the number of families below 30 percent of median area income admitted to public housing to the extent it exceeds its targets for admitting lower income households into the Section 8 program. The reduction may not exceed 20 percent of the total number of families provided tenant-based assistance in any fiscal year.

"Rent choice" — Income-based or flat rents. The compromise also includes the "rent choice" feature of H.R. 2. Public housing families would be offered the option of an income-based rent, as in current law, or a flat rent based on the rental value of the unit that is designed to encourage residents to work. Although, as with H.R. 2, provision is made for families to switch to an income-based rent under hardship circumstances, the proposed language vests too much discretion in the PHA to determine a family's inability to pay.⁸

Minimum rent. The Senate bill's minimum rent provision of up to $50 is included in the compromise, rather the House version which set a mandatory minimum of $25 up to $50.⁹

Home Rule Flexible Grants. Another contentious provision which is supported by neither the public housing industry nor residents is the Home Rule Flexible Grant under which funding for housing programs would be turned over to local government to design housing programs that could operate virtually free of federal regulation. Beyond laws governing civil rights, fair housing, age and physical disability discrimination, few federal protections would apply. Current law on tenant rights, including evictions and lease terms, would not apply. Although the Senate bill provides for a one-city demonstration,¹⁰ the House bill would permit all local jurisdictions to apply.¹¹

Community service/family self-sufficiency. The hotly debated Community Service and Family Self-Sufficiency requirement marries much of H.R. 2 with some features of the Senate bill. Public housing residents would be required to volunteer eight hours a month of community service or, as required in S. 462, participate in an economic self-sufficiency program. The compromise continues the exemptions in H.R. 2 for the elderly and persons with disabilities, as well as for people working, in training or complying with the work requirements under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. One departure in the discussion draft from either the House- or Senate-passed measures is a provision authorizing the PHA to contract with third-party providers for administration of the community work requirement.

Accountability and oversight. The final major component on which compromise has allegedly been achieved is accountability and oversight accreditation standards for measuring PHA performance.

Next Steps

As the Bulletin goes to press, the Senate has named appropriations conferees and the House has yet to make appointments. Although no members of the authorizing committees have been formally added to the appropriations conference, staff-level discussions are commencing on the details of the public housing bills that fall outside the member-driven issues described above. When the Congress returns from its August recess, it is likely that a conference report will be filed. n

¹  H.R. 2, Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 1997 (adopted May 9, 1997), H. REP. NO. 76, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. (Apr. 25, 1997), See also H.R. 4194, Making Appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 1999 (adopted July 29, 1998), H. REP. NO. 610, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. (Jul. 8, 1998). For background, seeHouse Public Housing Revisions — HUD Also Finally Unveils Its Revisions, 27 HOUS. L. BULL. 67 (May 1997).
²  See also S. 462, Public Housing Reform and Responsibility Act of 1997 (Sept. 27, 1997), S. REP. NO. 21, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. (May 23, 1997). For background, see Senate Takes More Moderate Approach to Public Housing Revisions, 27 HOUS. L. BULL. 51 (Apr. 1997); Housing Authorizing Bill Passes Senate Floor, 27 HOUS. L. BULL. 165 (Oct. 1997); and Senate's Housing Bill Would Repeal Good Cause For Eviction Protection, 27 HOUS. L. BULL. 195 (Dec. 1997).
³  "Discussion Draft, Amendment to VA and HUD Appropriations Bill, 1999" (June 18, 1998).
⁴  As the Bulletin goes to press, the authorizing committees had begun staff level discussions using H.R. 2, S. 462 and a July 1, 1998, Discussion Draft, "The Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 1998" (on file at the National Housing Law Project) which is an expanded version of the discussion draft referred to above. Unless otherwise indicated, citations are to this July 1 expanded version.
⁵  Letter of June 22, 1998, to Senators D'Amato and Sarbanes from 36 Senators, co-sponsored by Senators Chafee, Moynihan, Jeffords and Wellstone.
⁶  Section 513 of the July 1, 1998, Discussion Draft (supra note 4), creating Section 16(a)(2) the United States Housing Act.
⁷  Section 513, creating Section 16(b).
⁸  Section 520.
⁹  Section 507.
¹⁰  Indianapolis, Indiana.
¹¹  Section 564.