|
Congress addresses urgent housing issues
Legislation under consideration to reform
voucher program, establish National Housing Trust Fund
WASHINGTON, DC—July 19, 2007—A
flurry of summer activity in
Washington, D.C.
has resulted in renewed focused on housing issues that affect low-income people. Whether
this signals a turnaround in the recent steady erosion of funding
for housing is not yet clear, but lawmakers have acted in three
significant areas.
According to
SHA’s Executive Director Tom Tierney, “It is encouraging to see the
new Congress paying significant attention to the housing needs of
low-income people. It will be a real challenge, however, for
Congress to overcome the funding difficulties inherited from six
years of tax cuts and war. We are especially grateful to Senator
Patty Murray and her steadfast work on the Senate side in supporting
these changes.”
Committees in
both the House and the Senate have passed appropriations for HUD for
funding Section 8 Vouchers and Low-Income Public Housing. The full
House of Representatives and Senate will take up these funding
issues later this summer and in the fall.
On July 12, the
U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1851, the Section Eight
Voucher Reform Act (called SEVRA) by a wide majority, 333-83, with
110 Republicans joining all but 2 Democrats in voting for the bill.
And on July 19,
the House Financial Services Committee, chaired by Rep. Barney
Frank, D-Mass., took up debate on a new Housing Trust Fund. The
proposed legislation would initially allocate $800 million to $1
billion annually, with three-quarters of the funds marked to serve
extremely low-income families.
Appropriations up slightly
Both
of the appropriations bills passed by House and Senate committees
reject the cuts in housing programs proposed by the president's
budget and provide for modest increases in some programs. Overall, the
appropriation total for housing and transportation is at $104.6
billion, $5.3 billion more than FY 2007 and $4.4 billion more than
the president's request.
Funding for
Housing Choice Vouchers is suggested at $300 to $500 million more
than the levels suggested in the president’s original budget.
The Public Housing Operating Fund, which provides ongoing subsidy
for SHA’s 5,200 units of public housing, is funded at $4.2 billion,
$336 million above 2007 and $200 million above the president’s
request. Both HUD and the nation’s public housing authorities have
determined that $5 billion is needed in 2008, and acknowledge that
these programs continue to be under-funded.
The Public
Housing Capital Fund would be funded at
$2.4 billion, the
same as 2007 and $415 million above the president’s request. This
funding is used for major maintenance and rehabilitation of
buildings.
Programs that
fund housing for the elderly and disabled would be funded at the
same level as 2007, but still above the president’s request.
Voucher Reform Act would add 100,000 vouchers over five years
The Section 8
Voucher Reform Act is the most comprehensive reform package
considered in nearly ten years, and is a complex piece of
legislation spanning 128 pages. It affects many aspects of the
Housing Choice Voucher program, from inspections to administrative
costs to how “fair market rents” are established.
The legislation
reforms the Section 8 voucher program in order to increase the
number of families receiving vouchers. It strives to eliminate
inefficiencies that have resulted in $1.4 billion in unused funds
and provides incentives for agencies to assist more families.
One of the most
significant changes would be authorization for an additional 20,000
new vouchers every year for the next five years. This would expand
the program to serve additional households across the country at a
time when housing affordability is becoming an issue for more and
more households. Since this is an authorizing bill (not an
appropriations bill) there is no guarantee that this provision will
be funded, but it at least establishes Congress’ intention.
One troubling
part of the bill,
as written,
is that it could require every household member to provide standard
identification in order for the household to receive housing voucher
assistance. This provision likely would require the termination of
assistance for many current "mixed households" that include citizens
and legal residents. Currently, if some members of a household
cannot provide proof of citizenship, the household receives
proportionately less subsidy, but is still able to receive a
voucher.
Part
of the bill that
would likely affect Seattle Housing extends the current “Moving to
Work” program for ten years, and re-names it the Housing Innovation
Program. Designed to allow high-performing housing authorities to
tailor their programs to local needs, SHA has used the program to
try different rent policies and use vouchers in new ways. SHA staff
will be watching the legislation closely to understand its effects.
Housing Trust Fund addresses affordable
housing gap
According to Rep.
Barney Frank, D-Mass, "The growing shortage of affordable housing is
one of the most serious social and economic problems facing our
country." There's a shortage of 2.8 million homes renting at prices
that would be affordable to the more than 9 million low-income
renter households throughout the nation, according to the National
Housing Trust Fund Campaign, a Washington-based advocacy group.
Legislation
creating a new national Housing Trust Fund would initially allocate
$800 million to $1 billion annually, with three-quarters of the
funds marked to serve extremely low-income families. The housing
trust fund would be funded in part from the profits of
mortgage-finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as
revenue from the Federal Housing Administration. President Bush
does not support the creation of this new source of funding for
low-income housing, in spite of broad support by both parties and
the housing construction industry.
Sources for this
article included:
- Council of
Large Public Housing Authorities
- National Association of Housing and
Redevelopment Agencies
- Center for Budget and Policy
Priorities.
|