AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. NADLER Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler:
Page 63, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
Page 63, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
Page 63, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
Page 95, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by $120,000,000)''.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase funding for section 8 housing vouchers for low-income people by $100 million to enable an additional 15,000 low-income families to afford safe decent housing.
To offset this increase, the amendment cuts the working capital fund, a poorly managed computer upgrade program that has been the subject of lawsuits and which the committee criticizes in its report on Page 108. Even with the reduction, the bill would still provide up to $110 million in working capital funds for IT projects.
Please note, the bill provides up to $65 million in working capital funds in 11 accounts scattered around the bill other than the working capital fund itself.
We have a choice, Mr. Chairman. Do we want to help thousands of families obtain safe affordable housing, or do we think it is more important to have a somewhat faster computer upgrade in HUD? If we support American families, we should support this amendment. The need for housing assistance is staggering. All over the country, local housing authorities have long section 8 waiting lists, years long, but are forced to reduce the number of housing vouchers they give out, not because there is not a huge need, but because we are failing to meet the need here in Washington.
In fiscal year 2001, we increased the number of section 8 vouchers by 79,000. For fiscal year 2002, the number of new vouchers dropped to 18,000. In fiscal years 2003, 2004 and 2005 not one new voucher at all was provided for. Rather, the debate concerned how much funding was necessary simply to maintain the same number of vouchers. And so it is again now as we debate the fiscal year 2006 budget.
Despite the committee's assurance that the bill fully funds section 8 voucher renewals, the committee has been flatly wrong in making this assertion in each of the last 3 years; 2 years ago, for example, we passed an amendment to boost section 8 voucher funding by $150 million. The committee opposed the amendment on the Floor arguing that vouchers were fully funded.
Yet the conference report adopted a few months later added $110 million over and above the $150 million we added on the Floor, meaning that the committee would have underfunded section 8 vouchers by over $1 billion while saying the account was fully funded. That was 2 years ago.
Last year, the conference report provided $89 million more for voucher renewals than did the House bill. Yet just 2 months after the approval of the conference report, the Department, HUD, acknowledged that even the conference report fell $568 million short of funding all voucher renewals.
Now the committee, once again, says it is fully funding section 8 voucher renewals. But the President, President Bush tells us that to renew all existing section 8 vouchers, we would need $314 million more than the committee thinks is necessary. So the committee understated by $1 billion, by $568 million, and now by $314 million in each of the last 3 years.
We all understand that the budget is extremely tight and that many programs are facing cuts. Our amendment therefore does not seek the $314 million above the committee amount that the President would recommend. It seeks merely to restore $100 million. This is less than the bare minimum of what is needed.
The amendment will not enable us to provide vouchers to any more families than receive them now, but it will allow us to continue to help 15,000 families who are now being helped. It enables us to avoid throwing 15,000 poor families out on the street. That is our choice. The section 8 housing voucher program provides safe affordable housing to approximately 2 million American families in urban and rural communities in every State across our country. These vouchers are often the only resource for low-income families confronted by our Nation's affordable housing crisis. Once again, the choice is, will we force an existing 15,000 families who are now living in safe decent housing out on the street because we do not have the money to renew their vouchers? Or will we slow down a computerization program for the bureaucrats at HUD? That is the choice. I hope we will elect to help the low-income families meet their critical housing needs by supporting this amendment. I hope everyone will vote yes on the Nadler-Velázquez-Frank amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I will also at this time include in the RECORD a chart which documents the 11 different accounts in which funding for the working capital fund is squirreled away, so that people do not think that our offset takes too much money away from this program. And I will include in the RECORD a letter in support of this amendment signed by nine religious organizations representing Catholics, Jews, Lutherans, Presbyterians and Methodists.
Working Capital
$165,000,000
S&E--transferrable
15,000,000
Sect. 8 voucher acct
5,900,000
Sect. 8 project acct
1,000,000 Pub. Hsng. Capital
10,000,000 CDBG
1,600,000 HOME
1,000,000 Homeless grants
1,000,000 Sec. 202 elderly
400,000 Sec. 811 disabled
400,000 FHA--MMIF Acct
18,281,000 FHA--GI/SRI Acct
10,800,000 Total
230,381,000 Less reduction in Nadler amdt.
-120,000,000 Working Capital after Nadler amdt.
110,381,000 *Note: The bill hides $65 million in additional working capital on top of the Working Capital Account by sprinkling amounts in 11 other program accounts. This also has the misleading appearance of overstating the amounts made available for programs like Public Housing and Section 8.
June 28, 2005.
To: Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Re: Funding for the Housing Choice (``Section 8'') Voucher Program.
As members of the faith community, we are writing to express our concern about funding for the Section 8 housing voucher program, and to ask that you vote to increase funding for vouchers when the FY 2006 TTHUD spending bill comes to the floor of the House of Representatives.
Our organizations work with millions of low-income individuals and families who, despite their best efforts, are struggling to meet their basic needs. For many of these families, high housing costs present a major hurdle in this struggle, often forcing them to choose between paying rent and paying for food, clothing, prescriptions and medical care, transportation to work, and other essentials. The Section 8 voucher program offers critical assistance to two million such families, allowing them to live with dignity in decent, safe and stable housing. Through our work, we are witness to the important role that housing vouchers play in preventing homelessness, and in helping families whose members are unemployed, working low-wage jobs, or living on fixed incomes to make progress towards economic stability and self-sufficiency.
Congress has for many years expressed a strong commitment to the Section 8 voucher program, consistently voting to fully fund all vouchers. We were therefore disappointed to learn in January that HUD had announced a 4-percent cut in voucher renewal funding for FY 2005, despite Congress' intention to fully fund renewals for this year. This cut, which is equivalent to 80,000 housing vouchers, has reduced the availability of affordable housing in hundreds of communities around the country.
For FY 2006, the House Appropriations Committee has recommended increasing funding for Section 8 vouchers by $765 million, which is well below the President's request of over $1 billion. While the Committee recommendation would likely be sufficient to renew vouchers currently in use, it falls well short of restoring those vouchers that have been lost due to the FY 2005 funding shortfall.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler and other Members of the House are expected to introduce an amendment to increase Section 8 funding by $100 million in the House bill. This amount would restore funding for approximately 15,000 vouchers, thereby helping 15,000 poor families obtain decent, stable housing in the coming year. While more is needed, this amendment provides an important step forward in supporting these families. We therefore ask you to support the amendment with your vote.
As faith organizations, we are committed to strengthening our communities by assisting those who are the most vulnerable, and we believe that our work is not simply a matter of charity, but of responsibility and justice. We urge you to assist in in our work by renewing Congress' commitment to fully fund and expand the Section 8 voucher program.
Sincerely,
Call to Renewal.
Catholic Charities USA.
Jewish Council for Public Affairs.
Lutheran Services in America.
National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd.
NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby.
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Washington Office.
Union for Reform Judaism.
The United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society.
Mr. Chairman, the conscience of this Nation is asking for this amendment. I ask this House to agree with that and to adopt this amendment.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The amendment would require HUD to close down most of its systems and its operations, and would result in a loss of almost 400 jobs at HUD. All of this would occur almost immediately after the passage of the act.
And tragically, all of this would occur just to add funds to the Section 8 program that are not needed. It adds funds for renewals of vouchers when the renewal of vouchers has already been fully funded.
This is a tragic outcome for HUD for absolutely no benefit to families on assistance. Everyone agrees that the renewal of vouchers at $15.531 billion fully funds this program for 2006. The industry groups have said so and HUD has said so.
The only reductions in the Section 8 program that this committee took were in overhead and funds originally requested that the Department now agrees will not be needed in 2006.
Specifically, we reduced overhead and administrative fees to reflect the transfer of assistance from the tenant-based vouchers to project-based vouchers, and we reduced tenant protection funds because the Department indicates that the anticipated regulation that might require those funds is not going to be put out until after 2006.
What this amendment would accomplish is nothing, or to fund a shortfall of any kind. Each PHA will receive the amount it is entitled to, and then the additional funds will sit there and be swept up and used for other purposes by the administration, just as excess funds have been swept up and used for non-HUD purposes for years.
But here is what I want you to look at. Look at what happens to HUD in the meantime. The original request for HUD's working capital fund was for $265 million to maintain and develop new systems in HUD, new systems for accounting and new systems for programs.
The committee has already reduced the working capital fund by $120 million in order to fully fund critical assistance programs, such as the Section 8 program. The amount remaining is the barest of minimums that HUD has to have to keep its functions, keep its systems functioning and keep its functioning going.
The committee has already removed funds for all system enhancements and removed funds for all initiatives. Funds left were for maintaining the current systems and upgrades needed to meet Federal requirements such as their accounting system.
An additional cut of $120 million in their working capital fund would, according to HUD, simply shut down their systems, shut them down, and it would abrogate the contract they have with EDS and Lockheed Martin to maintain their systems. The contract itself runs over $100 million each year, and it is only maintenance. This amendment would leave all of HUD with only $45 million.
According to HUD officials, HUD would have to shut down the accounting system, the development of the new accounting system for FHA, system for PIH and to administer the Section 8 program, and then public housing programs will be shut down. Virtually all systems will be shut down.
Shutting down the contract that was painfully negotiated over a 4-year period will also throw HUD into chaos. They have no back up, nowhere to go except to the GSA schedule that will cost 150 percent of the cost of the contract, so with this amendment, HUD could not go there either.
I would just suggest to the gentleman that this is not workable by all of the investigation that we have done, and I would urge that we oppose this amendment.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of restoring funding for Section 8 vouchers. Providing decent, safe affordable housing is one area that must not be overlooked in the greater debate on spending priorities. This bill funds Section 8 at the level of $314 million below the President's request, jeopardizing the housing of low-income families across the country. Without restored funding, hardworking families struggling to make ends meet will be left without homes and will be forced to turn to the already crowded shelter system.
If you are committed to end homelessness as we know it, today you have the opportunity to vote for this amendment. The Nadler-Velázquez-Frank amendment will restore $100 million for Section 8 providing vouchers for approximately 15,000 families by reducing funding for HUD's working capital fund which provides for the technology needs of the Department. This increase will ensure that families working to create a better life for their children will have a safe, decent place to call home.
Stable housing is the first step to economic advancement and positive outcomes for children. Without a steady home, children suffer from being shifted between shelters and the homes of family and relatives, missing school and lacking opportunity for the lasting relationships so crucial to healthy development. The Nadler-Velázquez-Frank amendment will help address this issue by restoring critical funding to a program that has had a tremendous impact on the lives of low-income families around the country.
The Section 8 program is a lifeline for hundreds of thousands of families without which they would face the cold reality of life on the streets or the uncertainty of navigating our Nation's swelling shelter system. This amendment will prevent 15,000 families from losing their homes, continuing the support so needed as they strive to achieve economic stability in the face of challenging circumstances.
In this body, day in and day out, we hear talk about family values. What issue could be more linked to the morals we espouse than providing safe and decent homes for America's families? The Section 8 program serves the approximately 2 million Americans in greatest need, and these families are depending on us here today.
The Nadler-Velázquez-Frank amendment will restore $100 million in funding for 15,000 vouchers. This is a modest but important increase to protect the homes of families working to overcome obstacles in difficult economic times. I urge support of this amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by acknowledging that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) did a very good job of dealing with a difficult issue that was dumped in his lap in Section 8, and I acknowledge that. And I think he provided a great deal of comfort to tenants and administrators throughout the country by relieving them of the uncertainty that some proposed very drastic changes were there. And I thank the gentleman for that. And I understand also that he had a difficult situation. I would like to see even more.
The point I would just make is this: From a number of decisions that we have made, Section 8 has become the main housing program of the United States. I wish it were not. I think it is a mistake to have no production. And we have virtually no production. I think we have made the Section 8 program, by default, carry more load than it ought to.
Secretary Jackson talks about what an increasing percentage of the HUD budget Section 8 has become. That is partly because they have cut out everything else. And so what the Section 8 program is, is a survivor. And in an ideal world, we might allocate a little bit more to housing production, et cetera. But that is not where we are. We very much need this money. It is not nearly enough, but we are in a tight budget situation. Some of us wish we were not. Some of us voted not to be in it, but facts are facts.
As to renewals, the gentleman from Michigan may be right that there is enough for renewals. I hope he is. He may not be. But the point is that nothing in this amendment says it is only for renewals. The gentleman from New York pointed out that we have not had any new ones. Does anyone think that all of the people in America who need Section 8 housing now have it, and that we only have to work with renewals?
We had an amendment offered earlier by the gentleman from Minnesota, and I should acknowledge the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) voted for that affordable housing program that I talked about, and I should not have implied if anyone thought that he had not. But he talked about a $100 million more for the homeless, taking it out of Amtrak.
If you want to provide $100 million for the homeless, vote for this amendment because, you know what makes you homeless? Not having a home. That is what homelessness means. And one way to deal with the homeless is to get them homes. An additional $100 million in Section 8 is the best, most efficient way to provide homes for the homeless. So we acknowledge that there is an unmet housing need. And as I said again, and I mean this very sincerely. I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan with regard to CDBG and HUD and Section 8 and HUD. He brought some order of a situation that was fraught with confusion for people, and I appreciate his willingness to do this.
We are talking now about a somewhat marginal increase. We wish it could be bigger. But I would say the argument against this on the merits has to be that you think America is now providing housing for everybody who needs it.
I would say to other Members, across party lines, across geographic lines, in past years when there have been threats for shortfalls in Section 8, I know all of us on the Committee on Financial Services that deals with housing have gotten anguished complaints from other Members saying, How can we stop this?
Well, I tell you the best way to stop another wave of threatened shortfalls, people not having enough. Rents can go up. You cannot entirely predict what the needs are going to be. I tell you a very good way to prevent yourself from being again besieged by fears that there will be people turned away, et cetera. Put this money in here now. If it is not needed for renewal, I hope it is not, I cannot be sure it is not, if it is not needed for renewals, then I think we will find in this country $100 million worth of people who need housing. And that is of course what we do. I would say again, if you were tempted by the homelessness amendment before, taking it out of Amtrak, let us put it here. As far as HUD's administration work is concerned, I think we can probably find some ways to deal with that. But I do not think that we ought to sacrifice HUD's primary goal of providing housing for people to deal with some of the bureaucratic issues. So I hope the amendment is adopted.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Nadler-Velazquez amendment to restore partial funding for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. The underlying bill cuts some $314 million for vouchers that enables low-income families to rent safe, affordable housing. This amendment would restore a third of that money, $100 million, and thereby save about 15,000 low-income families from across this country from losing their homes.
If you are concerned about the homeless, then this should be a definite vote in favor of this amendment. This is very much a bipartisan issue. This past spring over 170 Members from both sides of the aisle signed a letter this spring to the appropriators urging them to restore full funding for the Section 8 voucher program. Those Members recognized that the Section 8 voucher program is the only effective Federal program supporting affordable rental housing in large urban areas such as New York City and Chicago and would be very much affected if this amendment does not pass.
Section 8 vouchers provide millions of families across the country a safe and affordable place to live and are critical to State and local efforts to end homelessness.
These cuts come at a time when Section 8 is already under attack due to program changes in April that threatened to cut over $50 million in vouchers in New York City alone. Due to underfunding in the last bill, many housing agencies have had no choice but to reduce the number of vouchers and cut the subsidy below local rental levels.
The proposed cuts make this very, very bad housing crisis a much worse situation. The money to fund this amendment comes out of a program for computer upgrades that the committee criticized in its committee report as ``poorly managed and inefficient.''
I would certainly say that keeping 15,000 families in their homes instead is a better choice that supports family values. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle constantly talk about family values. I cannot think of a more important family value than keeping families in their homes. This is what this amendment does.
In fact, a wide range of faith-based organizations have written an open letter to me and other Members of Congress making exactly that same point. And these faith-based organizations call the effort to save Section 8 vouchers ``not just a matter of charity but of responsibility and social justice.''
There are so many drastic cuts in this bill for worthy housing programs that protect the most vulnerable among us, cuts to housing for those with HIV/AIDS, cuts to fair housing programs that reduce discrimination in housing, and cuts to the Community Development Grant, program just to name a few.
I do want to compliment my colleagues for accepting the Miller amendment. It is very, very important to have monies in the budget for brownfields, particularly urban areas in order to spur economic development.
You cannot really build affordable housing without a Federal role. The Section 8 voucher program has been one of the most successful in this country's history in providing affordable housing to those in need, and it is unconscionable to have this cut. It would literally put 15,000 families out on the street and increase the need for more homeless housing.
So if you care about housing in general, if you care about not reducing the need for homeless housing, and the other cuts that the leadership of our ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), has pointed out so clearly on the floor, you should support this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I have examined very carefully this budget that we have oversight responsibility for in the Committee on Financial Services and the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development, and it is a matter of whether or not we are going to stand up here on every issue and try and get those programs back that have been zeroed out and attempted to transfer over to Commerce, whether or not we are going to stand here and beg for some meager assistance to help us with the Section 8 program, whether or not we are trying to get the Brownfields back or the section 108.
Well, it is pretty difficult to choose which one you want to spend your time on. As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development, I really would like to speak on all of them because it is really unconscionable that in this time in the United States of America, 2005, that we are haggling over dollars to help American citizens have a decent quality of life with decent housing.
We have a crisis in housing in America, not just in our cities, in our rural areas. People are not able to have decent housing. They are looking to their government for some help. We are giving some help. And I am appreciative of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for the hard work that he has put into this budget. I know that given what he had to work with, with the limitations of this budget, he has done the best job that he could possibly do. That is why some of us have been so opposed to these tax cuts.
We know that the tax cuts that we have passed in this Congress have benefited the richest 1 percent in America while we have people who are sleeping under bridges, families that are living in cars, people who work every day who cannot get into apartments because they cannot pay the first and last month's rent; children who go to school every day living in cars who are basically homeless because they do not have a place to live.
For those people who are fortunate enough to get the Section 8 vouchers, now we have to say to them as we did in Los Angeles that we cannot fund some of those vouchers. We made some mistakes in Los Angeles, and we over subscribed what we had. And we had people out there that we had given the authorizations to that we cannot honor. And now we are talking about taking money from one of the most profound programs in all of government, a program that simply allows individuals and families to have a decent place to live, and we are going to eliminate their ability to have decent housing because we want to spend money on some computers.
Well, I am all for good systems. I am all for upgrading. Now is not the time. Let us not take money from these housing subsidies in order to have computers when, in fact, if we take this amendment, we can fund 15,000 more vouchers. That is not too much to ask. I know that there are those who have said we have made the additions. We are not going to undo them. We are not going to turn them around. But those of us who get these calls in our offices, ask us, Where can you find me a place to live? How can you help me?
The lines are long all over America. People wish to get in this Section 8 program because they cannot do any better.
Our ranking member referred to housing production. It is next to nothing. We do not have housing production. The cost of the land acquisition is too high. It is absolutely prohibitive to try and build low-cost units for people who really need them without some government help. And we do not have enough government help in order to acquire the lands and to write down the costs of building these units.
The best thing that we could do for those who could not do it without us is to provide them with Section 8 housing vouchers. I do not think it is too much to ask. I support this amendment, and I am very thankful that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velázquez), despite the fact that they were advised not to do it, had the courage and the guts to do it. So I stand here with them to say no matter what else we are cutting, let us put the money back into this program.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I simply could not let the time go by without rising to support the Nadler-Velázquez amendment.
I realize the difficulty of finding resources. We all know about tight budgets, and we know that you cannot get blood out of a turnip. But the Section 8 housing voucher program is one of the best things that has happened for poor people in this country. Every day my phone rings incessantly with people asking if we know where they can find a place to live; do we know where they can find some low-income housing; do we know where they can find some affordable housing?
And while we are only talking about 15,000 vouchers, which is minimum, for those individuals who would be able to acquire them, it would be like receiving manna from heaven.
So I simply reiterate what has already been said and that is if we really want to help the homeless, do as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) said, provide them with a place to live. I support the amendment.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong support of the Nadler-Velázquez amendment. And I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Knollenberg) attempt to protect Section 8 in the bill. I respect his support for the program, but we are here about a debate in large respect about our values. That is what the budget process is. That is what the appropriations process is.
We speak to the different issues that we care about in this country and our personal values, and the total values of both our parties as well as our country are reflected in this national document that we call the budget and the appropriations process that fulfills that budget.
Now, when we think about values, what more values are there than of having a home, a place to call home, a place to bring your family, a place to bring your newborn child, a place where in fact that child is nurtured, a place where that child is going to study, a place where there will be celebrations, a place where difficult moments will be met together by family, a place that is secure and safe and warm and comforting and nurturing. That is a value when we talk about families because a family that does not have a home finds it very difficult to sustain itself as a family. So this amendment strikes at the very heart of what we want to see, the ability of families to sustain themselves together in a nurturing environment that we call home. For too many people in this country, there is simply not a place for them to call home, and many times families are not even together because they are living with other family members. They are separated and apart.
So, ultimately, this is about creating an opportunity for more families to call someplace home, and I wish we were discussing an amendment that would be providing far more than $100 million for Section 8, but still, this move, this is a critical one towards fulfilling the gap that the bill leaves open. At a minimum, we should be able to meet the President's request which recognizes the shortfalls in the program last year.
Section 8 is our Nation's most successful Federal low-income housing program, but it has been the victim of continual underfunding, sweeping structural changes and last-minute policy changes.
I have seen that firsthand in my district the havoc that it wreaks on the lives of people who are in it, and the millions who are waiting throughout the country and certainly thousands that are waiting in my own district as they wait on the list, and they are told after waiting so long, oh, we are still further underfunded; we are not going to get to that list. Without warning or rationale, HUD has changed the formulas, capped funding, established policies retroactively, making it harder and harder for housing authorities to keep up.
Last year's appropriation left a shortfall of 80,000 vouchers. What will it be this year, 100,000? The ongoing shortfall comes at a time when the administration has also put forward a proposal that dramatically threatens the future of Section 8, and finally, at a time when the cost of living is rising, when rented housing prices are increasingly out of reach, particularly in high cost areas like New Jersey, the answer to these obstacles should not be weakening the very program that provides assistance to those who depend on it most. If home is where the heart is, let this Congress not be heartless and not make more people homeless at the end of the day.
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I did not want this debate to end without expressing my support for what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) is doing today.
The reality is that, while this economy has improved in the last several years, while housing starts are on the rise, while the number of Americans with the chance at the dream of homeownership is rapidly expanding, there are a lot of breaks and gaps in this economy, and this program, Section 8, exists to remedy those breaks and those gaps.
The score of the amendment of the amount of money that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) proposes to add to this budget is roughly 1.6 percent of this bill. This is a fractional investment in the scheme of things, but it is a significant investment for numerous families who will benefit from Section 8.
So I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) for his outstanding work in raising this issue and being persistent and bringing it before this body.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and let me say that I also appreciate the work of the distinguished chairman from Michigan in bringing some order from the recommendation of the administration on this bill, but I have to make a couple of comments.
First of all, as I said before, look at what we have done on Section 8. We have hundreds of thousands of people on waiting lists, hundreds of thousands, waiting 8, 9, 10 years for decent housing for Section 8 vouchers. As recently as 2001, we increased the number of Section 8 vouchers by 79,000. In 2002, we increased it by 18,000. Since then, in 2003, 2004, 2005, we did not increase it by one, not by one. Instead, we debated, are we funding the existing number of vouchers, and this is what we are debating again now. I wish we were debating increasing the number of vouchers.
The gentleman from Michigan says Section 8 is fully funded. Well, I do not think it is, but even if it were, we should be increasing the number, and if we are wrong, and we are increasing the number by a few, that is the right thing to do, but the fact is, look at the history here.
Two years ago, the committee said we were fully funding Section 8. We added to that an amendment of $150 million. The conference report added $910 million above that, and that is what was necessary to fully fund it, $1 billion above what the committee said was fully funded. Last year, the conference report added $89 million above what the House did, $89 million more than what the committee said was necessary to fully fund existing Section 8, and HUD later acknowledged during the year that that did not fully fund it. It was $568 million short, and a huge number of people lost their vouchers.
Now the committee once again says it is fully funded, but the President says we need $314 million more to fully fund it. This amendment would give $100 million of the $314 million the President says is necessary to fully fund it, and again, what do we mean by fully fund? Not kick people out on the street, not increase by one, not shorten the waiting list. So we ought to be doing that.
Finally, let me say that we are told that the offset would leave only $45 million in its computer account. The fact is the co-committee has been very ingenuous in squirrelling away money in different accounts. I have here, and I submitted for the RECORD earlier, the list of all the places in the bill where money is squirrelled away. There is a total of $230 million. If we take $120 million away, as we will, that will leave $110 million for this purpose, which is enough for the computer upgrade program that they are talking about. Again, are we in favor of people having decent housing, or are we in favor of a somewhat faster computer upgrade at the Department?
Do not believe bureaucrats when they tell us that all will be lost if they do not get all the money they need. We should know better than that.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, Republicans many of them support this amendment. We passed a similar amendment 2 years ago with Republican support; 170 Members have signed a letter in support of this amendment, including many Members from the other side of the aisle. They voted for the same amendment 2 years ago.
I urge everyone on both sides of the aisle to vote for this amendment, to indicate that the very least we can do is not reduce the number of people who have the assistance, who are having decent housing. If we value family values, if we value decency in providing people with the ability to have decent housing, we will support this amendment, and the damage will be mitigated. It is not as much as the President wants, $314 million, but at least it is a third of that. Unfortunately, we could not find more offsets.
So I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the chairman. I urge everyone to vote for this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) will be postponed.