Mr. Chairman, I want to say, first of all, that under the terms of H.R. 2, the bill we are debating today, we do authorize incremental or new vouchers. In the language of the bill we simply authorize that such sums as may be necessary are authorized. The reason for that is because we do not have any basis for fixing a sum. For example, certain buildings in public housing will be demolished, in which case some of those residents may receive vouchers. In some cases the cost of remodeling will be so great that it will be more cost effective and the choice will be better for the tenant to receive a voucher, and they will receive that voucher. In other situations, people that may be displaced are seniors or disabled and will be receiving vouchers but, again, we are not sure exactly how many there are. So we have tried to make it clear from an authorizing standpoint that we are for additional new vouchers, but we cannot exactly say for sure because there is no basis to say for sure how many new vouchers we are authorizing.
Rick Lazio: “Mr. Chairman, I want to say, first of all, that under the terms of H.R. 2, the bill we are debating today, we do…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the authorization of new vouchers in relation to H.R. 2 during a committee meeting.
Share
More from Rick Lazio
It is not just incumbent upon, but morally, historically, and politically imperative that Congress refrain from statutorily changing programmatic features of the Indian Housing Block Grant program.
I think Donald Trump's problem is, does he appear presidential? So, that is an issue that's been exacerbated from I thought the suggestive prohibition and allowing people based on religious orientation to come into the country, which is…
I think number one that, you know, Donald Trump is not going to have a hard sell to explain or to persuade the American public that Hillary Clinton is not particularly trustworthy, that she's got ethical issues.





