Bruce F. Vento: “Mr. Chairman, the proposition that is proposed here by the majority is that if we have safeguards in terms of limiting…”

“Mr. Chairman, the proposition that is proposed here by the majority is that if we have safeguards in terms of limiting rent, that that is somehow going to hurt the tenants. That is what is being suggested. We agree, I guess, on the senior citizens that are in housing and disabled, and on very low income, but not on future senior citizens or low-income residents. We are going to have a disparity. They are going to pay more, or they are at least going to be exposed to pay more for rent. I am not surprised that housing authorities actually want this flexibility. Let us face it, the administration, housing authorities, want all the money and all the flexibility they can get. That is not surprising--the housing authorities trust themselves. It is our role in Congress to look at whether or not we are going to accommodate and try to provide some protection--some safeguards for those that are in public housing. I think all we have to ask ourselves is who is for it and who is against it. In other words, the housing authorities, the landlords are for the Lazio amendment; they want the flexibility to go this way and to in fact raise rents. The tenants are against it because they get no assurance as to the limit of rent increases--no safeguards out of this proposal. In other words, this amendment that the gentleman has and the way he has structured the law hurts the working poor.”