[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 97 (Friday, July 22, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1035
 
  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 3838) to amend and extend certain laws relating to housing 
and community development, and for other purposes, with Ms. Kaptur, 
Chairman pro tempore, in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole House rose 
on Thursday, July 21, 1994, the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] had been disposed of and the bill was open for 
amendment at any point.
  Are there further amendments to the bill?


                     amendment offered by mr. blute

  Mr. BLUTE. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Blute: Page 36, line 23, insert 
     ``(a) Applications.--'' before ``Section''.
       Page 37, after line 10, insert the following new 
     subsections:
       (b) Limitation on Occupancy in Public Housing Designations 
     for Elderly Families.--
       (1) In general.--Section 7(a) of the United States Housing 
     Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437e(a)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law'' and inserting ``Subject only to the 
     provisions of this subsection'';
       (B) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``, except as provided 
     in paragraph (5)'' before the period at the end; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Limitation on occupancy in projects for elderly 
     families.--
       ``(A) Occupancy limitation.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, a dwelling unit in a project (or portion of 
     a project) that is designated under paragraph (1) for 
     occupancy by only elderly and disabled families shall not be 
     occupied by--
       ``(i) any person with disabilities who is not an elderly 
     person and whose history of use of alcohol or drugs 
     constitutes a disability; or
       ``(ii) any person who is not an elderly person and whose 
     history of use of alcohol or drugs provides reasonable cause 
     for the agency to believe that the occupancy by such person 
     may interfere with the health, safety, or right to peaceful 
     enjoyment of the premises by other tenants.
       ``(B) Required statement.--A public housing agency may not 
     make a dwelling unit in such a project available for 
     occupancy to any person or family who is not an elderly 
     family, unless the agency acquires from the person or family 
     a signed statement that no person who will be occupying 
     the unit--
       ``(i) uses (or has a history of use of) alcohol, or
       ``(ii) uses (or has a history of use of) drugs,

     that would interfere with the health, safety, or right to 
     peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants.''.
       (2) Lease provisions.--Section 6(l) of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437d(l)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7); and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (5) following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(6) provide that any occupancy in violation of the 
     provisions of section 7(a)(5)(A) or the furnishing of any 
     false or misleading information pursuant to section 
     7(a)(5)(B) shall be cause for termination of tenancy; and''.
       (c) Eviction of Nonelderly Tenants Having Drug or Alcohol 
     Use Problems From Public Housing Designated for Elderly 
     Families.--Section 7(c) of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Standards Regarding Evictions.--
       ``(1) Limitation.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), any 
     tenant who is lawfully residing in a dwelling unit in a 
     public housing project may not be evicted or otherwise 
     required to vacate such unit because of the designation of 
     the project (or a portion of the project) pursuant to this 
     section or because of any action taken by the Secretary of 
     Housing and Urban Development or any public housing agency 
     pursuant to this section.
       ``(2) Requirement to evict nonelderly tenants having drug 
     or alcohol use problems in housing designated for elderly 
     families.--The public housing agency administering a project 
     (or portion of a project) described in subsection (a)(5(A) 
     shall evict any person whose occupancy in the project (or 
     portion of the project) violates subsection (a)(5)(A).
       ``(3) Requirement to evict nonelderly tenants for 3 
     instances of prohibited activity involving drugs or 
     alcohol.--With respect to a project (or portion of a project) 
     described in subsection (a)(5)(A), the public housing agency 
     administering the project shall evict any person who is not 
     an elderly person and who, during occupancy in the project 
     (or portion thereof), engages on 3 separate occasions 
     (occurring after the date of the enactment of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1994) in any activity that 
     threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment 
     of the premises by other tenants and involves the use of 
     alcohol or drugs.
       ``(4) Rule of Construction.--The provisions of paragraphs 
     (2) and (3) requiring eviction of a person may not be 
     construed to require a public housing agency to evict any 
     other persons who occupy the same dwelling unit as the person 
     required to be evicted.''.

  Mr. BLUTE (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BLUTE. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  Senior citizens in America are living in fear, not just because of 
crime on the streets, but because of crime in their own homes--public 
senior housing complexes.
  When this House changed Federal law to allow young drug and alcohol 
abusers into senior housing facilities, we brought terror into the 
everyday lives of elderly Americans across the country who deserve to 
live out their retirements in peace.
  Not only are our parents and grandparents subjected to loud music and 
all-night parties. They are being shaken down for loans, harassed, 
robbed, assaulted, and raped. Prostitutes are setting up shop in 
apartments and turning tricks in common areas. And there is no end in 
sight to this outrageous situation. We all hear about it--especially 
Members with large cities in their districts--when we travel back home. 
And just this Sunday I read an article in the Boston Herald headlined: 
``Fear Holds Elderly Tenants Hostage in Homes.''
  Police who have never had to respond to a call at a senior housing 
building in 10 years now find themselves there on a regular basis. And 
cities and towns find themselves faced with the prospect of having to 
pay for private security guards to maintain order in elderly 
residences.
  Today, we have the opportunity to help end this injustice which 
terrifies senior citizens across America and ruins their golden years. 
My amendment would strengthen provisions included in the Housing and 
Community Development bill by forcing local housing authorities to 
evict violent and troublesome nonelderly tenants. Blute-Grams would 
prevent nonelderly former drug and alcohol addicts from being accepted 
into senior housing developments from now on, thus helping to stem the 
tide of young drug and alcohol addicts who may soon be the majority in 
facilities that are supposed to be for the elderly.
  I commend the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs for 
recognizing this problem and trying to address it in this bill, but I 
believe that we need to go further. To take an extra, commonsense step 
which will help to ensure the safety of American seniors.
  Elderly Americans took the extra step for us. In World War II, in 
Korea, by working hard all their lives to make this country great. We 
owe it to them to help them live their lives in peace and security.
  Just recently in my district, an elderly woman living in a public 
housing facility was shaken down for a $1,000 loan by a 38-year-old 
former drug abuser who lived in her complex. She was harassed 
constantly by this man until her daughter and grandsons were forced to 
go to the facility and confront him, at which time this menace 
threatened their lives with a knife.
  But horror stories like this are commonplace.
  In Boston, a 92-year-old woman was raped in her public elderly 
housing apartment by a 38-year-old resident of her building, and 
another 91-year-old woman who resides in a different facility told the 
Boston Globe that: ``I used to love it here, but not any more. I'm 
afraid to go out in the hall.''
  What have we done.
  In Franklin, MA, an elderly resident was set on fire by a 42-year-old 
resident.
  In Worcester, MA, court records published in the local newspaper show 
defendants charged with crimes such as assault with a dangerous weapon, 
drug possession, and assault and battery listing their home address as 
one of the city's many elderly housing complexes.
  Our seniors deserve better.
  I have visited many senior housing facilities and heard from frail, 
aged residents who cannot use the rec room in the lobby without fear of 
being harassed or attacked.
  I have seen the terror in the eyes of senior women who must call each 
other on the phone and meet at the same time in the hallway so that 
they can travel in a group down the elevator.
  And I have, unfortunately, read of the litany of violent crimes 
nationwide perpetrated on seniors by their own neighbors who have 
relapsed into a life of crime and drug abuse or were not properly 
screened in the first place; 15 years ago, senior housing buildings 
were safe havens. Now they are war zones.
  As one 70-year-old man recently told a columnist at my local 
newspaper, ``I don't know why the people who put this country together 
are dropping us by the wayside. I guess it's because we're old and used 
up, and we're just not important anymore.''

                              {time}  1040

  Mr. GONZALEZ. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I have listened to the gentleman. However, since a 
reading of his amendment was suspended, I think the Members are 
entitled to know what they will be voting on.
  I also realize and appreciate the concern expressed by the 
Congressman, but we have had hearings on this issue, known as the mixed 
population issue, ever since the amendment to the Basic Housing Act 
with respect to the elderly housing amendment that had to do with the 
disability or disabled, and the definition of such, which then gave 
rise to the mixed population issue, which has been a very excruciating 
and difficult one.
  Madam Chairman, the subcommittee has had hearings from Milwaukee and 
California to Texas and the District of Columbia on this issue for the 
last several years.
  Madam Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka], who has 
left the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs since then but 
is present here this morning, was the one who finally broke the ground 
and set the first viable language that we adopted in the previous 
Congress, in the 1992 Comprehensive Housing Act.
  The main thing here is that it is a heavyhanded, far-reaching 
approach which, incidentally, we entertained this amendment when a 
member of the minority side, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams], 
offered the identical amendment. He withheld it in light of the debate 
that we had during that hearing and the consideration by the 
subcommittee.
  He then consulted with HUD and then came forth with the amendment 
which is part of the law now. This is in the bill.
  It already provides for the eviction for any tenant in any public or 
assisted housing if the activity of that tenant threatens the health, 
safety, or peaceful enjoyment of other residents.
  This was Mr. Grams' amendment after considering and withholding the 
amendment that the gentleman now is offering.
  The bad thing about this amendment is that it does not provide for 
any distinction between an illegal drug user or alcohol user. It simply 
says drug or alcohol use which threatens the health, safety, or quiet 
enjoyment of other residents, as being grounds for summary eviction.
  This means that a senior citizen who occasionally imbibes and turns 
up the television in his or her own apartment or the common room or who 
talks louder than needed would be a candidate for eviction. So too 
would be the diabetic senior citizen, dependent on regular insulin 
injections would be a candidate for evictions under the language of 
this amendment.
  So the fact is that the amendment makes no accommodation for, for 
instance, a successfully rehabilitated individual and it permits the 
eviction of the entire household, irrespective of which member or 
members are affected.
  Fifth, the amendment does not address where the excluded and evicted 
disabled persons are to be housed. In all likelihood they will become 
homeless, creating yet another problem for the communities involved, a 
problem that is far more costly than proper screening and lease 
enforcement of current residents of public and assisted housing, which 
is contained in our bill as we have it before the House now.
  Mr. GRAMS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Blute-Grams amendment to 
improve the safety of senior citizen housing.
  Under the current bill, expedited eviction proceedings are allowed in 
cases where a resident's behavior constitutes a threat to the health, 
safety or right to peaceful enjoyment of senior citizen housing units.
  I offered this language during markup in the Banking Committee in 
response to the many concerns raised by senior citizens across America 
who are worried for their own personal safety in housing reserved 
specifically for them. These concerns have centered around the tight 
eviction standards found in title VI of the 1992 Housing Act which 
allow young people with drug or alcohol problems to live in the same 
housing units as senior citizens.
  Since enactment of the 1992 housing bill, we have heard numerous 
complaints from senior citizens about the behavior of some of their 
nonelderly neighbors, including allegations of criminal or drug-related 
activity. The language I inserted in H.R. 3838 will make it easier for 
such troublesome residents to be evicted quicker and more efficiently. 
It will ensure that our senior citizens can live in public or assisted 
housing without the fear of dangerous or disturbing next-door 
neighbors.
  But, Madam Chairman, while this language is a positive step in the 
right direction, there is still more we can--and should do--to protect 
the safety of our senior citizens. That is why I am proud to offer this 
amendment with my colleague from Massachusetts which will help augment 
the language currently in H.R. 3838. By adding a ``three strikes, 
you're out'' provision, we can guarantee senior citizens that they will 
be safe from repeat, nonelderly troublemakers.
  The right to safety in one's home is our most basic right as citizens 
and its enforcement should be the top priority of government. And there 
is no group more deserving of this protection than America's senior 
citizens. H.R. 3838, coupled with this amendment, will provide these 
safeguards and will reassure elderly residents that Congress is on 
their side.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Blute-Grams 
amendment today. Let us do everything possible to guarantee that 
America's senior citizens can live in peaceful, trouble-free 
surroundings. We owe them at least that much.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in opposition to the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition because I think it is redundant 
in many respects in terms of the language and the law that has been 
prescribed with regard to mixed population. In fact, this legislation 
regarding mixed populations provides an orderly way to provide the type 
of elderly-only population, that would avoid some of the conflicts that 
are occurring with serious problems in our Nation's public housing. As 
the chairman indicated, this was enacted over 4 years ago. I think the 
administration has not been timely in implementing the rules and 
regulations. But just this past year such rules and regulations are now 
proximate and ready to be put into place to provide the type of 
protection accorded by the then-Kleczka amendment supported by my 
colleague from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].

                              {time}  1050

  The fact is that the litany of concerns that have been expressed are 
common concerns, but they do not just evolve from the people living 
within public housing. They, in fact, are very often coming from the 
total neighborhood around the public housing where nonresidents of the 
public housing actually gain access. We cannot assure the elderly of 
the type of security that the proponents of this amendment advocate in 
the absence of an overall program dealing with the total community or 
the neighborhood within which that senior-citizen-only housing exists. 
We have to deal, not just with what is going on in the building, but in 
the immediate surrounding and those that do not have rightful access to 
that building that gain access to it.
  Madam Chairman, that is one of the reasons that this legislation 
includes the community partnerships against crime measure that was 
advocated by the administration and introduced by, and supported by, 
the committee; so it is in this legislation to try and in a sense be 
proactive in working with and limiting the access to the building and 
the activities that are going on around the building in this instance, 
and so those individuals gain access. They have no right to be there.
  Furthermore, as I said, I think that the mixed population policies 
need to be implemented where we are trying to provide for senior-only 
housing where there are conflicts between various groups in housing. 
Furthermore, HUD has significant authority beyond just the narrow 
parameters that are prescribed here with regards to illegal drug use 
and alcohol use and the history or pattern of problems in the signature 
that they are prescribing. In fact, of course, they have a 
responsibility to deal with a whole host of different types of 
behaviors that are disruptive and disconcerting to those that live in 
public housing, not just in senior-only public housing, but in all 
public housing, and I think it is important that they begin to do a 
more rigorous job in terms of screening. So, they already have that 
particular responsibility.
  I think the problem with this legislation is the problem with an 
effort to try to take an issue which may be appealing on the surface, 
and we have the law of unintended consequences that takes place. As the 
chairman has indicated, the likelihood here is to try to have an uneven 
effect in terms of those individuals. The literal reading of the 
language would bar anyone with a disability that is a nonelderly person 
that has a history of use of alcohol or drugs and constitutes a 
disability. Well, the fact is there are numerous individuals in our 
society that have gone through rehabilitation but are still interpreted 
and diagnosed as being addicted, addicted to alcohol or addicted to 
some other drug, but, in fact just because they have the addiction does 
not mean, in fact, that they are any problem in terms of behavior. The 
fact is that those that have not been diagnosed would constitute the 
greater problem and the greater issue and obviously would not be as 
affected by this amendment.
  ``Any person who is not elderly,'' the amendment reads, ``and whose 
history of use of alcohol or drugs provide reasonable causes for the 
agency to believe the occupancy by such person may interfere with the 
health, safety or right.'' So, reason to believe; in other words, 
simply judging and making a judgment that has no bearing, in fact, with 
regards to the conduct of the individual in requiring the signing of 
such statements and so forth I think simply puts people in a position 
where they really are compromising the integrity of the screening 
process, and of course entire families would be if one individual in 
that family, and if that is the primary person that is qualified for 
the benefit, there is no provision made here to deal with it. So, I 
think--already has the authority to do this and much more.
  Madam Chairman, I would urge the amendment be defeated.
  Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I listened very 
carefully to the arguments of both the distinguished chairman of the 
committee and the gentleman from Minnesota because I think they make 
some very valid points. There are probably methods by which HUD, under 
its present makeup by which this legislation, as we know it today, 
could indeed address some of these problems, but I have also had the 
experience of going out into housing authorities in my State, the State 
of Delaware, and talking to the senior citizens who live in what was 
intended originally to be senior housing, and I can tell my colleagues 
that there is absolutely no issue whatsoever that even comes close, or 
maybe in the aggregate which comes close, to their concern with the 
problem of mixed populations. It is a tremendous problem preying on the 
lives of these senior citizens.
  Madam Chairman, these places were created basically to aid those who 
are older or who are disabled who needed a place to live. Suddenly we 
came along some a few years ago, and we stated that we are going to put 
other people in there, we are going to mix the populations, and a lot 
of those people had problems. Even if they did not have problems, they 
were young. They tended to live different life styles, if my colleagues 
will. But we add and compound it with the problems which they had, and 
all of a sudden we had a situation which was explosive and which has 
created tremendous problems in senior housing complexes throughout the 
United States of America, and I think that this, hopefully, is the law 
of intended consequences and not unintended consequences. The intended 
consequences I hope that the Blute-Grams amendment has is to make sure 
that we keep these populations as separate as possible, or, if they are 
going to be together and there are disruptions, we have a mechanism by 
which we can create the eviction. If nothing else, maybe that will be 
the control mechanism that we need to be able to go to these people and 
simply say, ``You must cease and desist what you're doing to being so 
disruptive to the life styles of all the other people.''
  Now, when I toured the facilities in Wilmington and looked at this, I 
was with a number of members of our housing authority and with the 
executive director, and they unanimously felt this was a tremendous 
problem. Other than, perhaps, weapons and crime in some of the lower 
income housing, they thought it was the single greatest problem which 
they face.
  So, yes, maybe there are answers out there in what HUD is doing. 
Maybe there are answers in the existing legislation, but, quite 
frankly, they have not worked very well, and I do not think this is an 
unreasonable amendment. I think it is a well reasoned, well thought out 
amendment, well crafted by the two authors, and I would rise in strong 
support of it unless we are shown something to the contrary which I 
have not yet heard here today. I would suggest that we should pass as 
rapidly as we possibly can on into the Senate and on into action so 
these senior citizens can live their lives in the peace and order that 
they thought they had when they moved into that housing to begin.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Madam Chairman and Members, first of all let me acknowledge the 
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez]. He 
did offer a chairman's en bloc amendment yesterday which included a 
provision which is very important to the workers of Wisconsin. It seems 
that under the community development block grant program one of our 
neighboring States took it upon themselves to use some of those dollars 
to pull employees and an employer down to their State. Clearly that is 
not the intent of the development block grant program. It is one which 
should be used to create jobs in our own neighborhoods and not steal 
those jobs from other neighborhoods, and so I thank the chairman for 
including that.
  Madam Chairman, I do rise in strong opposition of the amendment. To 
listen to the proponents of the amendment one would think that Congress 
never addressed this issue at all, and that is the furthest thing from 
the truth. Let me recite for some of the new Members some background on 
this issue. I say:
  The tales you tell today of disruption in senior housing were told to 
us over the years, especially 2 to 3 years ago, so the members of the 
Housing Committee and the Banking Committee, like Chairman Gonzalez, 
Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Marge Roukema, Bruce Vento, and I got 
together, and we crafted legislation to resolve the mixed population 
problem. Did we do this in a vacuum? Did we pop an amendment onto the 
floor of the House one day with little thought or no thought? The 
answer to that is no. What we did, we met with the various groups 
concerned. We met with the senior citizens. We met with the disabled 
groups. We recited to them the problems that are coming into our 
offices day by day.
  Madam Chairman, we tried to work on a solution to the problem, and I 
think the solution to the problem was found, and it was passed back in 
1992, and the solution involves such things as having our housing 
authorities come up with a plan, a plan which would include not only 
mixing the population, but also separating them with an eye on the fact 
that there are those who are in public housing who deserve to be there, 
and it was not our desire to kick them out in the street, but we wanted 
to give the public housing authorities the flexibility to separate 
these people, to provide separate facilities for these people, to 
provide for an eviction process when somebody became very unruly.
  Madam Chairman, to my young friends who are new to the Congress, 
those are the things that are done, and that is the law. Why is it the 
problems have not ceased? Because over the last 2 years we have been 
fighting, and pulling, and scratching with the Department of HUD to 
come up with the rules to implement that legislation, and the rules are 
now on line, and if my colleagues would take the time to check with 
their housing authorities, they will find that under those rules and 
under the mixed population legislation on the books those housing 
authorities are now providing HUD with their allocation plan. The city 
of Milwaukee that I hail from has done so, and they have submitted 
their allocation plan to HUD. HUD had some problems with it. They are 
trying to work it out now.

                              {time}  1100

  But in the city of Milwaukee we are going to have designated 
buildings for the disabled versus the elderly. We are going to have 
elderly only. So I ask my colleagues, what is the need and the 
necessity for this amendment, knowing full well that the bill before us 
already contains strengthened eviction processes? But if you go to the 
amendment before us, we are asking younger disabled persons applying 
for admission to sign an oath that they will not use drugs or alcohol. 
That is presuming they are guilty before we have even charged them with 
anything. Surprisingly, there is one Member of Congress who is asked to 
sign an oath before we even take our oath of office.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLECZKA. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Furthermore, it does not mean that if you happen to be diabetic and 
taking insulin that that means you are using drugs. You may have a 
problem, an instance of medical necessity, or you are insulin 
deficient. You may have a pattern of behavior that is interfering with 
a person's problems.
  This amendment did come up in committee, and yet it is presented here 
on the floor with the same sort of defects and problems, and it would 
knock out people, not just someone who is an alcohol abuser or a drug 
abuser or an addict, but people who take medically legal drugs, and 
that may constitute a problem.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, the objection I have is that just on its 
face, if I were a disabled person applying for public housing, I would 
have to sign an oath. Do other residents or occupants or people who 
apply have to sign an oath? If I were elderly, would I have to sign an 
oath? Clearly not.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. KLECZKA. Let me finish my statement first.
  Mr. Chairman, another portion of the amendment which I think is 
obnoxious provides for three strikes and you are out.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Condit). The time of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Kleczka was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, this portion of the amendment which 
provides for three strikes and you're out is very popular lingo around 
here today. It is almost as popular as bashing illegal immigrants. We 
have provided for three strikes and you're out in the crime bill, and 
now we are going to have that in public housing.
  Under the current law the public housing agencies around the country 
will come up with an eviction type program which will provide the same 
thing. I do not know if it is going to be three strikes and you're out; 
it may be one strike and you're out. At least there will be due process 
for the person who is in the public housing and who is going to be 
evicted.
  So I say to the Members that we have already addressed the problem. 
The rules have now been promulgated by the agency, and it is now up to 
the public housing authorities in Minnesota, in Massachusetts, and 
Wisconsin and all others to submit to the Department of HUD an 
allocation plan and set up a rational system for dealing with this 
problem.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield now?
  Mr. KLECZKA. I yield to the author of the amendment.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
certainly recognize his leadership in this area prior to my coming to 
this Congress. But I must say that whatever has happened before I came 
to the Congress has not begun to provide the type of safety for senior 
citizens in public housing that we all believe they should have.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the gentleman 
did not hear me, but as I indicated, it took awhile for the rules to be 
promulgated. All of us, including members of the committee, badgered 
the Department, and they now are finished. It is up to the public 
housing authority to provide the allocation plan for the Department.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman further?
  Mr. KLECZKA. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding 
further.
  Yesterday the Massachusetts Chapter of the National Association of 
Housing and Redevelopment officials endorsed this amendment. At least 
in the State of Massachusetts those people who have to oversee these 
housing complexes support this amendment because they believe that the 
Federal regulations do not go far enough.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in strong support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am really quite stunned by the position the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka] has taken on this. The gentleman from 
Wisconsin and I worked together for years on this problem of mixed 
populations, and I agree to him to a certain extent that much was done 
under the reforms of our legislation in the 1992 Housing Act. And, yes, 
it did take much too long for HUD to come through with the regulations.
  But I must say to my colleague, who is no longer on the committee, by 
the way, and did not have the benefit of the hearings which we held on 
this subject, that when I pressed this very question with the officials 
who came before us to testify, not only as to the delay in the rules 
but as to why the rules were not adequate enough to deal with this 
problem of alcoholics and former drug addicts in mixed populations. I 
must say as the author and the coauthor of the 1992 amendment and as a 
supporter of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams], a distinguished 
member of our committee who pushed through the reforms that are in the 
bill and that did take us further than the 1992 bill, but these changes 
did not strengthen the provision to the effect that we really intended.
  This is what we are doing in this amendment: The gentleman from 
Minnesota and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute] are in my 
opinion fulfilling in real legal terms the intentions of the reforms of 
1992 in this legislation that is before us today. And, by the way, 
there was a reference by one of our committee members that this may be 
involved: That you have to affirm that you are not taking any drugs, 
and there was reference to insulin. Please, let me assure the Members 
that that is not part of this problem. That is a red herring of an 
issue, and we all know what we are talking about. We are talking about 
drug addicts and alcoholics who may be reverting to their previous 
problems.
  This provides for three infractions, where they are literally not 
only violating their own terms and conditions of parole or treatment, 
but they are also violating the peaceful living arrangements of our 
senior citizens. I just find this to be plain common sense. I do not 
understand how anyone in this Congress can turn their backs on senior 
citizens and say, ``No, your housing authority should not have the 
right to evict drug addicts and alcoholics who have on three separate 
occasions violated the terms and conditions under which they were even 
permitted to qualify as tenants in the housing project.''
  That, I say to my colleagues, is what we are talking about. Yes, 
these people are disabled, and I am the first to give every person in 
this world a chance for reformation and rehabilitation, but if they go 
back on their rehabilitation regimen and they are actually violating 
the terms and conditions under which they were permitted as a tenant to 
begin with, frankly I think three strikes is too many. If it were up to 
me, I would say one strike. But this amendment is so generous to the 
disabilities of those people here that we are giving them three 
strikes.
  I am sorry, but as the coauthor of the amendment of 1992, as one who 
worked very diligently with the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] on 
the committee, I am saying that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Blute] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] are today bringing 
us full circle to the point of actually identifying exactly what is 
needed to make the intention clear, what we have stated as our 
intention actually to be fulfilled, without getting more lawyers from 
HUD involved.

                              {time}  1110

  The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka] and I had this discussion 
when we were waiting more than a year for the rules. The lawyers over 
at HUD were the ones that tried desperately to violate the intention of 
the law.
  One other point that I want to make, because the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka] did refer quite correctly to, is the fact that 
we are concerned about alternative housing, and there are needs for 
housing these kinds of disabled.
  I do want to point out that in this bill we have made a concerted 
effort to increase our commitment for alternative housing for people 
exactly like these, who need rehabilitation and are disabled in these 
ways. In H.R. 3838 we have authorized a level of $595 million for the 
Section 811 Program. Also, the VA-HUD appropriations for this year 
appropriates $174.4 million for the Section 8 Program for the disabled, 
and homeless assistance set-aside for disabled to the tune of $514 
million.
  So I think we are balancing this in many ways to help these 
unfortunate people, but certainly they should not continue to be 
terrorizing the elderly in their home complexes.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this amendment. I 
would like to make a point that has not been made. Why do we have these 
senior citizens complexes? We have them because it is a portion of our 
population that is over their earning years. They are frail, and they 
need assistance. They need a special place to live, and we have 
provided it, and we have done a pretty good job of it.
  But I would like to bring up two points. One needs to be underscored, 
and the other really has not been brought up yet and we need to talk 
about it.
  The first one is you take people who are potentially violent, who use 
drugs, who abuse alcohol. The drug users have violated the law. Most of 
them have been guilty of felonies at one time or another, whether they 
have been convicted or not. And you take them and mix them in with a 
population of our elderly.
  That makes absolutely no sense. I cannot believe that we are not 
getting a stream of speakers from the other side of the aisle to come 
down and give us assistance in passing this amendment. This is a most 
important amendment.
  The other point that I think needs to be made is that we have a 
shortage of elderly housing in this country. With this shortage, why in 
the world would we set a portion of it aside and say that we are going 
to put people in here who have abused drugs and alcohol? They have 
placed this afflication on themselves by their abuse of a legal and 
illegal substance.
  So why in the world would anybody object to this amendment? This is a 
very good, common sense amendment. It should be a bipartisan amendment, 
and I would urge its passage.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by praising the authors of this 
amendment, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute] and the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams], for bringing to the floor an 
issue which in all of our communities, those of us who have been out in 
our public housing projects know, is a very real issue.
  It seems to me in listening to the debate the difference is between 
those of us who have gone in and listened to what some of the officials 
at our public housing authorities have told us, as well as some of the 
residents, and those who want to stick with policies of the past simply 
because they had some merit at some point in the past. Things have 
changed here and we ought to recognize the change.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute] and the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Grams] have listened in their communities. What they are 
bringing to the floor here today is a case of having listened and 
wanting us to legislative on that which the communities want to have 
done, and I think they deserve our great praise for having done this.
  The suggestion here a little while ago was that some Members have 
been around here longer and know more about this. Believe me, from 
everything I know, what is going on out there in the communities right 
now suggests that this amendment is the right amendment at the right 
time.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe it is the right amendment at the right time. 
That is why the seniors Coalition, one of the largest Senior advocacy 
groups in the country, have endorsed this amendment, because they know 
from listening to their constituency out there in the real world, that 
current policies are not working to protect our senior citizens in 
senior housing.
  The fact is that 10 years ago, 15 years ago, these senior complexes 
were places that were quiet, serene, places where we would like our 
parents or our grandparents to live out their lives. But because of 
Federal policies, that has changed, and it has changed dramatically. It 
is fast becoming a crisis in our senior housing, where seniors are 
being abused. These news reports are the real world, and we need to 
take some real world action here in the Nation's capital to protect 
these individuals who have worked hard all their lives. And all they 
ask from us is some assistance and the ability to live up their lives 
in peace and quiet. I think it makes a lot of sense that we take this 
action.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his statement, 
because he is absolutely right.
  Mr. Chairman, I point out one other thing. Let us assume that there 
is no maliciousness here whatsoever. Let us assume that all of the 
people we are housing in these projects are people who are fully 
recovered, who are living even model lives.
  What you have done here though is still created a bad situation. 
These tend to be young people, our younger people. But they are young 
people who have a life style that is different than older people. They 
are people who are in the housing complex, who have their friends come 
in. They party late. They are not doing anything which is wrong. They 
are not doing the kinds of things that maybe the management feels they 
should be evicted for as such. But nevertheless, it is disruptive to 
the older citizens in the same building.
  It is the kind of thing that just does not mix very well, and that is 
the problem. So even if you assume the best in all of this, the fact is 
that it is still a mixed population that does not work for the elderly 
clientele in these apartments, and that is what we are attempting to 
get at.
  The problem is it is not always the best situation. As the gentleman 
pointed out, some of these people are literally being terrorized in 
some of these apartment houses, and that is absolutely wrong.
  Mr. VENTO. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I do not think we disagree on the mixed 
population issue and the solutions in terms of better screening. I 
think the concern here is the amendment being offered only addresses 
two facets of alcohol and drug addiction. If you have had that 
particular problem, it may not be a problem in the future.
  As an example, having worked in our own commmunities at a complex 
that has a lot of individuals with brain injuries, they are residing 
there and the senior citizens are upset with that. It points out the 
very fact the gentleman is raising with regard to mixed populations. 
For instance, this deals with no past record of criminal behavior, 
whether it is violent or others. I just think the idea of striving to 
focus on this and limiting this, and there are some unintended 
consequences, contrary to the statement of my colleague from New Jersey 
[Mrs. Roukema] it does not make clear. I know it is not the intention 
to deal with people who are using legal drugs or substances such as 
insulin. But the literal reading of the language does not indicate 
that. I know the gentleman does not want to do that. But that is the 
effect of it.
  I think what we have here is an effort to try to micromanage this 
from the standpoint of the rules and regulations, which is not going to 
have the intended consequences. The administrations have been tardy 
coming to this. They have been reluctant because of the discrimination 
issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Walker was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his point. I just 
wanted to say that in talking to the people at the public housing 
authorities, the problems are largely arising because of the fact that 
the disability has been defined as including drug and alcohol abusers. 
Disability defined in that way has put large numbers of these people 
into elderly housing projects, and they are indeed the source of many 
of the problems within it.
  So the narrower amendment does make sense as a first step in trying 
to solve the problem. What we have here is a fairly narrow amendment 
aimed at trying to solve the bulk of the problem that exists.
  Again, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute] and the 
gentleman for Minnesota [Mr. Grams]. They have done the Congress a 
favor by having the courage to bring forward this amendment.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Blute amendment. This 
amendment improves the Housing and Community Development Authorization 
Act by strengthening the so-called mixed populations provisions. The 
mixing of the elderly and handicapped in public housing has created 
problems in numerous housing authorities nationwide, including one in 
Torrington, CT. The incompatibility of the elderly and recovering 
addicts who now qualify for disability has resulted in an atmosphere of 
fear and distrust in public housing units such as Torrington Towers.
  While I am pleased that the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 
Committee adopted language that allows expedited hearings for 
noncriminal matters and directs the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development to publish a concise booklet that explains what Public 
Housing Directors can and cannot ask to prospective tenants. I do not 
believe, however, that these provisions go far enough to protect the 
safety and well-being of public housing residents.
  The Blute amendment would simply require the disabled to sign a 
statement that he or she will not abuse drugs or alcohol in such a way 
that would interfere with the health, safety, or right to peaceful 
enjoyment of the premises by other tenants; violation of this written 
promise would be grounds for eviction. The amendment also requires the 
eviction of any nonelderly person who, on three separate occasions, 
engages in a criminal or disruptive activity that threatens the health, 
safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by the other 
tenants.
  The problem the Blute amendment addresses is one that we helped to 
create by changing the disability laws. We have actually passed in this 
House an amendment of those disability laws that will limit eligibility 
for disability benefits to 3 years for drug and alcohol recovering 
addicts. That is a step forward and will help in addressing this 
problem.
  But changing our disability laws is not enough, and the solutions 
adopted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development are not 
adequate. Publishing a concise booklet better describing how to select 
good tenants is nice. But, after all, most of our housing directors 
already know how to interview tenants. Most of them have had 
responsibility for this kind of work over many years.

                              {time}  1120

  While the new booklet may help, but it will not help a lot.
  Expedited hearings for noncriminal matters are useful as well, but we 
all know how long even this process takes.
  The bottom line here is that housing, in our senior housing 
buildings, is not just about a roof over one's head. In my part of the 
country, where there is ice and snow on the ground much of the year, a 
roof over your head is only part of housing. These buildings are 
communities. They are places where people have tea together; they have 
community events together.
  It is truly tragic when elderly citizens have to come to me, and I 
had a meeting with them recently, and share their real fear about what 
is happening in what used to be a really wonderful, not only senior 
housing building, but also a senior community. Members of that 
community stood up at my recent meeting and said, ``I am afraid. I am 
afraid to go down to our teas. I am afraid to go down to our afternoon 
coffees.'' That is wrong. We owe it to the seniors of America to make 
sure that they are not afraid to get together in their own buildings.
  Mr. Chairman, in fact their fear is the consequence of our rather 
unthoughtful action in making a whole population not only eligible for 
benefits but eligible also to share senior housing.
  The Blute amendment is very simple and will help. It would only 
require tenants to sign a statement that they would not abuse drugs and 
alcohol in a way that would interfere with the health, safety, or right 
of peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants. Violation of 
that agreement would be grounds for eviction. that is not a big deal. 
Tenants should not be acting in a way that threatens the health, 
safety, and well-being of our senior tenants.
  The Blute amendment goes on to say that if there are three separate 
occasions of disorderly conduct, that that is also grounds for 
eviction. We owe it to those who run our senior housing buildings in 
America to give them a clear standard and an effective way to deal with 
some of the tenant problems that they now face.
  In speaking with constituents from northwestern Connecticut, it has 
become painfully clear to me that the mixed populations issue needs to 
be addressed aggressively by Congress. Our senior citizens living in 
public housing should not be forced to live in fear of their neighbors, 
but rather, should be able to enjoy a community atmosphere in their 
public housing building. For these reasons, I rise in support of the 
Blute amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Condit). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to thank the chairman, 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], and the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento], for their very strong help in the fight against 
homelessness in America. I especially want to thank them for their 
support of a provision that I first introduced at the committee level 
and which was incorporated into this bill as part of the manager's 
amendment.
  As Members know, this provision provides that every State in the 
country, no matter how small, receives at least $2 million under the 
new McKinney block grant program. This is extremely important to the 
small States of America and to the rural States of America, like 
Vermont, which will now be able to receive the necessary funding that 
they require in order to run an effective State-wide program to combat 
homelessness.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we know that the media focuses on the crisis of 
homelessness which takes place in many of the urban centers in America, 
and we all know that is in fact a terrible problem. Sometimes, however, 
we overlook the fact that States like Vermont and small cities and 
towns like Burlington, VT, or Brattleboro, or Bennington, also have 
problems of homelessness.
  Mr. Chairman, what this legislation will enable us to do is, not only 
in Vermont but in other rural States throughout America, to begin to 
have Federal resources in order to combat that problem. I very much 
want to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] and the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] for all of their help in this area.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to praise and compliment my 
colleague, the gentleman from Vermont. There is nothing I feel more 
pleasure in doing than assisting this very able Representative of the 
Green Mountain State, which is a State I have visited, and one of the 
most beautiful in our country, and yet very historic.
  What the gentleman has done, he has, on 99 percent of the occasions, 
and the only time I took exception to one of his moves was when he 
wanted to tax the Texans for the S&L debacle, but other than that I can 
recall on every single occasion that the gentleman has been creative, 
he has been constructive, he has offered measures, either through 
amendment or through bills, that add to the substance of our country. 
In no way do they destroy the substance, but they add to it.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman and assure him that 
it was our privilege to work on behalf of his cause.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for his work 
in representing the small States. It is always difficult when we are 
dealing with formulas and the effect they have, the uneven effect, on 
States like Vermont and many others. Therefore, as we struggle with 
that, I appreciate the patience of the gentleman from Vermont and other 
Members that have given us the latitude to work on this as we try to 
rectify whatever the inequities are in it. The gentleman has been 
positive and constructive. I appreciate his strong support for the 
McKinney Act and his work on housing and community development. I thank 
the gentleman.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, once again, I just want to thank the 
chairman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], and the chairman of 
the subcommittee, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], for all of 
their work. Together we are going to defeat homelessness in America.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to commend the chairman of 
the committee for his fine work on this bill and for his efforts in 
trying to assist us in our problem we had with Castle Air Force Base. I 
would like to ask if I could join in a colloquy with him for some 
clarification on a problem that we may or may not have. This concerns 
Castle Air Force Base and other bases whose properties have been 
published in the Federal Register prior to July 1, 1994.
  What we are concerned about, Mr. Chairman, and I know the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] and his staff have worked very hard on it, is 
whether or not local communities will have some input and some 
jurisdiction over these properties, and take into consideration 
community interest, economic impact, so on and so forth, before 
decisions are made by us here on the Federal level with these 
properties. I have been assured that that is the case. I would like to 
ask the gentleman to comment on this, if I may, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONDIT. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to reaffirm that assurance, and 
say that thanks to the very good spirit of cooperation and 
bipartisanship, and the excellent work by the staff on both sides, that 
what our amendments en bloc that we offered last night contain is 
language that will be very helpful to the gentleman's case of the 
Castle base in his district, and in no way would be detrimental or 
contrary to his community's desire to utilize this abandoned base, 
displaced base, for the purposes of the homeless.
  I want to thank the gentleman for his work in that respect, but 
reassure him that our language will help and in no way detract.
  Mr. CONDIT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to 
thank the chairman and his staff for their fine work and assistance in 
this. We appreciate it very much.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONDIT. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the cooperation of the gentleman and of 
the Committee on Government Operations, and specifically my colleague, 
the gentleman from Minnesota, Collin Peterson, who chaired the 
Subcommittee on Employment, Housing, and Aviation of the Committee on 
Government Operations, and who worked with us, as well as the Committee 
on Armed Services, in developing revisions of title V which are key to 
the gentleman and many who have base realignment and closing and other 
Federal properties that are subject to the provisions of the McKinney 
Act.


                      amendment offered by mr. kim

  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kim:
       Page 565, after line 11, insert the following new section 
     (and conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 852. PROHIBITION OF ASSISTANCE TO ILLEGAL ALIENS.

       Section 313 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 11343) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c) Prohibition of Assistance to Illegal Aliens.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any provision of law 
     other than paragraph (2), no amounts provided to carry out 
     this title may be used to provide shelter, food, supportive 
     services, or any other assistance to any person who, at the 
     time the person applies for, receives, or attempts to receive 
     any assistance from a program assisted under this title, is 
     not a citizen or national of the United States, a permanent 
     resident alien, an asylee or asylee applicant, a refugee, a 
     parolee, a nonimmigrant in status under the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act, or admitted with temporary protected status, 
     a temporary resident, or a person granted family unity 
     protection status under such Act.
       ``(2) Exception.--The Director may authorize the use of 
     amounts provided to carry out this title for providing 
     shelter, food, supportive services, and other assistance for 
     persons described in paragraph (1) in such instances as the 
     Director considers appropriate and such use shall be subject 
     to any rules or guidelines established by the Director, 
     except that--
       ``(A) such assistance may not be provided for such a person 
     for a period that exceeds 7 days; and
       ``(B) any local government, private nonprofit organization, 
     or other service provider providing such assistance under 
     this paragraph to such a person shall notify the Immigration 
     and Naturalization Service of the identity and location of 
     the person during the 7-day period beginning upon the initial 
     provision of such assistance for the person.''.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. KIM (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to clarify 
and help complete action on the issue of illegal immigrants receiving 
Federal homeless assistance.
  Like many of you, I am deeply disturbed about the effects that 
illegal immigration is having on our country. Illegal aliens cost our 
Nation billions of dollars every year in Federal handouts. Through 
fraud and loopholes in Federal law, illegals continue to obtain 
benefits that Federal policy intends to deny them.
  I remind my colleagues that illegal immigration is a Federal 
responsibility that requires Federal solutions, and this amendment that 
I offer here today will go a long way toward cutting off the pipeline 
through which this illegal aid flows.
  No one in this Chamber can dispute the fact that we have a continuing 
homeless problem in America.
  But we are in a time of tight budgets and as elected Representatives 
we must be prepared to make the hard decisions. Do we spend our scarce 
Federal dollars on our own homeless citizens, or do we squander it on 
people who are illegally residing in our country? The answer is simple. 
To put the interests of any illegal immigrant ahead of one of our own 
is a betrayal, this body must start putting American citizens and legal 
residents first.
  This amendment gives the Members of this Chamber the opportunity for 
an up or down vote on the subject of taxpayer-funded handouts for 
illegal immigrants.
  We are dealing with people who have no legal right to be here. We 
should not feel guilty and uncompassionate because we want to put 
Americans first.
  We should not feel guilty and uncompassionate because we expect and 
want our laws to be enforced.
  We must put a stop to the magnets that draw poor people from around 
the world who see our hard earned Federal tax dollars as a means to 
improve their standard of living.
  Until we act to stop this flow of money to illegals, we cannot solve 
the problem of illegal immigration. Unless we act to remove this magnet 
once and for all this problem will continue to plague us.
  This amendment, however, also allows emergency assistance such as 
food and shelter to illegal immigrants for a period of 7 days at least. 
At the end of 7 days of free assistance the INS would be responsible 
for the illegal immigrants.
  While some may question why FEMA should be required to determine if 
someone is legally in our country, I ask, why should FEMA not be 
required to do no less than any American businessman?
  The question we must ask ourselves here today is, do we want to 
continue to try and stretch already scarce dollars to cover all 
applicants, or do we want to provide our own citizens with the aid they 
deserve?
  I say it is time to place Americans in need first. I ask my 
colleagues to join me in support of this amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KIM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kim amendment. 
Obviously, as we look at this issue, this is one that is not a new one 
to us here on the House floor. In fact, it was addressed just last week 
by our colleagues with an overwhelming vote of 289 to 121 on a motion 
to instruct conferees on the crime bill. We all acknowledge that the 
resources of the Federal Emergency Management Agency are obviously very 
scarce. We have a serious fiscal crisis in this country. To allow for 
the continuation of funding for those who are in this country illegally 
obviously takes dollars away from those who are in this country legally 
and desperately need them.
  I think this amendment is very worthwhile. I strongly support it and 
urge my colleagues to join with us.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I would 
like to suggest to the gentleman from California that he has not 
thought through what he is offering today. There is not a Member on the 
floor who stands and suggests that any services or resources of the 
United States should be provided to someone who is here undocumented or 
illegally for the vast majority of programs offered by this Federal 
Government. I have voted, as I am sure the gentleman who offers this 
amendment has voted, to restrict those services to undocumented aliens. 
But the gentleman has gone absolutely too far with this amendment when 
he denies emergency services in the midst of a disaster to a person who 
may be an illegal alien. Virtually every amendment that has been 
offered on this subject has specifically exempted emergency food, 
shelter, and medical assistance for those who may be illegal aliens for 
the very real reason that if one has an ounce of humanitarianism in his 
system, he would not turn down clean drinking water to a person in the 
midst of a disaster because that person may not be legally in the 
United States. If one has any concern for any person in this world 
whether they live in Rwanda or live in Los Angeles, he would not turn 
down medical services to a person bleeding to death on the chance that 
they might not be legally in the United States.
  Let us step aside from the humanitarian aspect and just suggest that 
perhaps the gentleman does not buy that argument. Let me give the 
gentleman another argument. Last year I represented an area hit hard by 
flooding. Many of your colleagues in California represent areas hit 
hard by the recent earthquake. People dispossessed from their homes, 
thrown out on the street, absolutely nowhere to turn, who went to 
shelters provided by FEMA to try to keep their families together and 
survive through the worst experience of their life. Because of the 
amendment which the gentleman offers, these people will be required to 
bring with them proof of citizenship before the U.S. Government will 
provide any service for them. That is ridiculous. It is the ultimate in 
bureaucracy. The gentleman is putting a mandate on this agency which 
would require them before they provide services in the midst of a 
disaster to verify the person receiving them is a citizen of the United 
States.
  I might tell the gentleman from California, many of my constituents 
could not have done that because every earthly possession they owned 
was knee-deep in water and mud. To ask them to sort through their 
papers and find a birth certificate, for goodness sake. Is the 
gentleman really suggesting that?
  This amendment is a mistake from start to finish. If the gentleman 
cannot accept the humanitarian argument, at least fight the bureaucracy 
which the Kim-Rohrabacher amendment would instill.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, in response, there are two things the 
gentleman's statement misstates. First, as I mentioned earlier, we do 
have 7 days free assistance provided on this provision. Seven days. I 
feel that is enough. After 7 days, then these people will be forwarded 
to INS. INS will take over and continue sheltering them until such 
time. We are not talking about cutting off immediately. Seven days, 
FEMA will continue support and given them free assistance.
  Mr. DURBIN. Reclaiming my time, does the gentleman have any idea how 
long the flood in the Midwest lasted? It went on for weeks and weeks 
and weeks. People were losing their homes, coming in begging for help, 
for a meal, for medical service, for a roof over their head for their 
children. And this gentleman is saying that at the end of 7 days, we 
will say, ``We're sorry, you have to leave now''?
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, we 
are talking about illegal aliens only, not American citizens.
  Mr. DURBIN. At the end of 7 days, the gentleman would ask for proof 
of citizenship?
  Mr. KIM. If the gentleman will continue to yield so I can answer his 
second question about the proof of citizenship.
  Mr. DURBIN. Certainly.
  Mr. KIM. As the gentleman knows, under current law the private 
business owner must verify the citizenship of the applicants. If they 
do not, they are going to be severely penalized anyway. I do not see 
why Federal agencies are excluded.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman realize he is talking 
about giving someone a drink of water, of clean, pure water for his 
children? The gentleman is prepared to deny that unless the individual 
asking shows proof of citizenship? Honest to goodness, has the 
gentleman been through a disaster?
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the 
private businesses do it all the time. If they do not do that, they are 
going to be penalized. Why are government agencies excluded?

                              {time}  1140

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, obviously there is a concern with undocumented 
individuals in our society. The fact is, the gentleman is putting the 
responsibility, as the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] pointed 
out, putting the responsibility on the nonprofit agencies. These 
agencies are operating on overload. They have no ability. They are 
providing services very often with volunteers and charity dollars and 
the very small amount of money that comes from the Federal Government, 
from FEMA to help these nonprofit groups is, of course, vitally needed. 
But the fact is it is a very small amount of money, and they are doing 
a lot of work with volunteers.
  They have no records. Very often these benefits are provided in a 
time when they could not even make a phone call to make a 
determination. The institutions and others who have the background 
records are closed. We are dealing with an emergency situation.
  There may be a lot of cases where we can fight an instance or make a 
case that we should look into the citizenship of individuals before 
they get benefits. But this is the least likely place that we would do 
that.
  This is an extreme amendment in the sense it would simply cut off 
those individuals immediately and force them into the streets. In fact, 
most of the money used in the FEMA Program, as far as I know, 45 
percent of it goes for food and soup kitchens, 15 percent for shelter, 
30 percent to pay utilities and rent, 5 percent on equipment, and a 
very small amount for administrative costs.
  So the gentleman is trying to say he is putting this on the Federal 
Government and why should FEMA not go through this. FEMA is in fact 
dispensing this, and it goes out through the charitable Council of 
Nonprofit Groups set up at the local community and the national board. 
It is a very, very successful program with very low overhead. What the 
gentleman would suggest is that we take these scarce dollars, in fact a 
little over $100 million in the appropriations bill and spend it and 
begin to spend it on the Immigration and Naturalization Service that we 
have a problem with.
  I would suggest other remedies are much better than trying to do it 
in this particular case where we are trying to meet a problem head on 
in our communities. These nonprofits are spending their own dollars. 
They have their own shelters, their own kitchens, and they are getting 
a small amount of money that they desperately need because they are on 
overload and because there are literally tens of millions of people 
over the course of the year who are in fact homeless in our society at 
one time or another, sometimes for emergency reasons, sometimes for 
other reasons.
  I would urge that the gentleman's amendment be defeated on the basis 
that it may be good intentioned in terms of dealing with the 
undocumented in our society, but the truth is this amendment is 
unworkable and costly. And it is the wrong place to put this type of 
solution. We should not put on the backs of the nonprofit organizations 
trying to deal with the very humanitarian needs in or society the 
responsibility to deal with the job that belongs to the INS.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Moran). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California to speak for 5 additional 
minutes?
  Mr. SERRANO. Regular order.
  Mr. DIXON. Regular order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California cannot offer 
a pro forma amendment to his own amendment. The gentleman has already 
spoken for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. DIXON. Regular order.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Regular order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is the regular order. The gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dreier] has not as yet been recognized for 5 
minutes on this amendment. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] 
controls the time and may yield to whomever he chooses.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Kim].
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Again, I 
resent that I have been portrayed as almost cold-blooded and having no 
feeling for these people. That is not the case. That is why we have an 
emergency assistance to illegal aliens for 7 days, and after that this 
will be taken over by the INS. They will organize these people and send 
them back to their country.
  We are talking abut illegal aliens coming up here illegally. We have 
limited funds, and we have to make a decision today on how we are going 
to continue to help them, providing them all of the free shelter and 
food, and free assistance. We have to draw the line somewhere.
  That is why I feel that 7 days is sufficient enough for them to at 
least be treated on an emergency basis.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for his contribution and his effort. I 
think he has made a very good point.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that as we look at this issue, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Kim], has very accurately pointed out 
that there are very limited resources and funding for the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Kim] is a person who came to this 
country legally and happens to be very concerned about the flow of 
illegal immigrants coming into the United States. That is the reason he 
is offering this amendment.
  The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] indicated earlier that we 
are going to immediately deprive people of this assistance that is 
necessary, and in fact that is not the case in the Kim amendment. The 
amendment provides for a 7-day period whereby assistance can be 
provided to these people who are in the country illegally, and then at 
the end of that 7-day period the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
takes over responsibility for dealing with this situation.
  We all are very concerned about any victims during a disaster that 
takes place, and we in California have suffered from more than just 
earthquakes, as was mentioned earlier. We have had a wide range of 
disasters in our State, and frankly we have seen the cost to deal with 
providing services to people who have entered our State illegally range 
from some have said $3 billion to as high as $8 billion. That is a cost 
which is incredibly high, and it is one which our State cannot continue 
to handle. Obviously with the debt crisis that we face here at the 
Federal level we cannot handle it in programs like these emergency 
services.
  But the gentleman from California [Mr. Kim] has no interest 
whatsoever in depriving people of emergency services for at least a 7-
day period. Then let the Immigration and Naturalization Service step in 
and provide the assistance that is necessary for people who are not in 
this country legally.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from California for 
yielding. The fact of the matter is the Kim amendment goes even further 
than the gentleman is suggesting.
  The McKinney Homeless Assistance Act provides money to private, 
voluntary organizations for soup kitchens. The Salvation Army, Catholic 
Charities and a variety of organizations are administering money 
through FEMA for the Homeless McKinney Act. The Kim amendment would 
cause volunteer organizations to make inquiries as to the status of a 
person, and ultimately, after providing soup for a homeless person for 
7 days, they would have to be cut off and the volunteer organization 
would have to report to Immigration.
  The gentleman from California should not be taking soup out of the 
mouth of a homeless person.
  Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time, as my friend knows very well I 
have no interest, and my colleague, Mr. Kim, has no interest in taking 
soup from people who are victimized by a disaster.
  Let me say that our friend, who is the ranking Republican on the 
Housing Subcommittee, plans to offer an amendment to address just the 
concern that has been raised, and I know that the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Kim] and I will certainly join in support of that 
amendment, which will clarify the problem that has been raised by my 
friend.
  Mr. DIXON. It may clarify it, but it is not before the House at this 
time. And the Kim amendment does exactly what I said.
  Mr. DREIER. But the point I am making is that we are sympathetic with 
the concern on this side, and we plan to support the efforts by the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] to address the concern.
  I thank my friend for his contribution, and I thank him for 
clarifying this issue for us.


 amendment offered by mrs. roukema to the amendment offered by mr. kim

  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.

                              {time}  1150

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Roukema to the amendment offered 
     by Mr. Kim: page 2, after line 23 of the amendment, insert 
     the following:
       ``(3) Inapplicability.--This subsection shall not apply in 
     the case of any disaster declared by the President under the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. 
Roukema] is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her amendment to the 
amendment.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I was concerned about some of the same 
issues that have been raised by the majority here, namely, the 
questions of what do you do in the middle of a flood or the middle of 
an earthquake. Is the 7-day period, as defined in the amendment 
presented by the gentleman from California [Mr. Kim], adequate enough?
  And the bureaucratic questions that were raised by our colleague, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], certainly did concern me, and yet 
it is a question of many of us feeling that there is right on both 
sides of this issue.
  We certainly do not want this to be interpreted as carte blanche for 
illegal immigrants to be getting extensive services, and I think some 
of the questions here that have been raised are perhaps 
misunderstandings of the law and what is actually done or not done 
under FEMA.
  But the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] was quite correct in 
terms of pointing out the soup kitchen problem, and before he brought 
that up, I was trying to have an amendment that you now have at the 
desk written up that would clarify precisely what would be appropriate 
under these circumstances, and the language is as read,

       This subsection shall not apply in the case of any disaster 
     declared by the President under the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.

  What that means is you would not have to ask all of these questions 
in the middle of a disaster. That is what it means, nor would it mean 
that if someone is inadvertently dealing with soup kitchen situations 
that they would have to be denied this kind of assistance under FEMA.
  I think this solves the problem on both sides.
  I will be happy to first hear from the sponsor of the amendment if 
this would be acceptable to him, and I understand it is.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. KIM. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I am more than happy to accept the 
amendment to my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Texas wish the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey to yield to him? The gentlewoman from New 
Jersey controls the time.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to interpose the fact that 
there is a parliamentary question here.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from New Jersey yield 
for a parliamentary question to the gentleman from Texas? The 
gentlewoman from New Jersey controls the time.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Yes, I would.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to be timely as I can be in 
interposing a point of order against this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I want to be protected in my right, as timely as I 
could be, to interpose a point of order against this amendment on the 
basis of it is going beyond the scope of the act. It is going beyond 
the scope of the act. It is going beyond the scope of the act and the 
germaneness since it addresses another----
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The chair wishes to advise the gentleman 
from Texas that a germaneness point of order would come too late at 
this point.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. That is the reason I am interjecting myself now, 
because how could I offer a point of order if we had not seen this 
amendment?
  Mr. WALKER. Regular order; regular order.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Remember, this amendment is hastily written, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It would have been in order for the 
gentleman to have reserved his point of order prior to the debate on 
the amendment. The debate has begun on the amendment at this point, and 
the gentlewoman from New Jersey does control the time. The amendment is 
pending, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, the intent of the amendment obviously is to 
deal with the disaster declared by the President. The point would be 
that insofar as the disasters are not insofar as somebody lost their 
home or other events of less consequence that would result in the same 
loss of identity, the loss of information and background to demonstrate 
your citizenship, you have cured it insofar as the magnitude of the 
disaster is adequate enough, but it is not cured with regard to 
problems where there is not a Presidentially declared disaster.
  Would that be your interpretation? In other words, in the sense you 
are suggesting if there is a Presidentially declared disaster and 
someone has lost their ability to demonstrate their citizenship which 
often falls obviously on people of color in terms of their problems, 
Hispanics and others, that they would still have the same problem. Is 
that correct?
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Well, I would think, if I understand the gentleman's 
question, and I am not sure that I do----
  Mr. VENTO. Well, I would try to repeat it again.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Well, let me give my response, and then maybe that will 
clarify where there is understanding or lack of understanding between 
us.
  I would think the 7-day period would cover that problem, would it 
not?
  Mr. VENTO. I do not think that it would. My interpretation would be 
that, first of all, it does not affect any of the FEMA money that is 
provided under McKinney. That would still be all subject to the 
requirements that we have been talking about of the nonprofits and 
various groups that the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] pointed 
out would have difficulty. They would be completely liable, because 
these are not declared disasters, so they would be completely under the 
rigors of this particular amendment in terms of requirements in 
demonstrating citizenship and going through that particular matter.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
[Mrs. Roukema] has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Vento and by unanimous consent, Mrs. Roukema 
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. I just wanted to give the gentlewoman back the time that I 
used. I will not use additional time because of that.
  But this section would apply to disasters that are not Presidentially 
declared. This subsection would apply to the entire FEMA McKinney 
program; in other words, these nonprofits that would be forced to try 
to go through a documentation process.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Yes.
  Mr. VENTO. As someone said, we are going to hand it over to the INS 
at the end of 7 days. What does that mean? I do not think they have an 
emergency program. It means we are requiring FEMA, I might point out, I 
am certain, and these nonprofits are to fully cooperate insofar as they 
can with the INS. There is no suggestion they do not.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Yes.
  Mr. VENTO. The only question is we do not expect the Catholic 
charities, the Salvation Army, and so on to take on the job of the INS. 
I think that is unfair. I think that is misdirected.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
[Mrs. Roukema] has again expired.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional 
minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey?
  There being no objection, the gentlewoman is recognized.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. I object; I object.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman must be standing. The 
gentleman was not standing at the time. The Chair heard no objection.
  The gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] is recognized for an 
additional 2 minutes.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, obviously this amendment is not going to 
satisfy everybody, but I say to my friend, the gentleman from 
Minnesota, and he is my friend, we work frequently together, but in 
terms of the natural disaster question that was raised and the fact 
that obviously the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Kim] did not anticipate the problem, this will satisfy that 
problem.
  Now, if we are going to go on to the whole question of how we verify 
illegal immigrants, that is a different one, and the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from California [Mr. Kim] does allow that 7-day 
period, and I think that should take anyone who is at all open-minded 
about how we deal with the horrendous costs and problems that the flood 
of illegal immigrants is causing in certain areas of our country, but 
to be fair, I think my amendment does fairly address the question of 
the disaster. I think the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] was 
absolutely correct in terms of his analogy to the flood and earthquakes 
in Los Angeles, and I think we have done a straightforward job of 
dealing with that part of the issue.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. KIM. The intent is not to harm any individual's emergency needs 
in a crisis. The question is if you think the 7 days' free assistance 
to illegal aliens is inhumane, then how many days would not be?

                              {time}  1200

  We cannot have indefinite assistance to illegal aliens, knowing that 
they are illegals, while we are having budget problems here. We are 
cutting back all kinds of programs for our own citizens.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Moran). If there is no further debate, 
the question is on the amendment offered by Mrs. Roukema to the 
amendment offered by Mr. Kim.
  The question was taken, and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I 
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Evidently, a quorum is not present.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2 of rule XXIII, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the pending question following the quorum call and, further, 
pursuant to rule XXIII, on the underlying amendment to the pending 
amendment if there is no intervening debate or business.
  Members will record their presence by electronic device.
  The call was taken by electronic device

                             [Roll No. 347]

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                              {time}  1221

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Moran). Three hundred ninety-three 
Members have answered to their names, a quorum is present, and the 
Committee will resume its business.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my demand for a recorded vote and, 
instead, ask for a vote by division.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. Would the 
Chair clarify the situation for us?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Kim] has 
requested a vote by division, and the vote will be taken by division. 
The vote is on the Roukema amendment to the Kim amendment.
  On a division (demanded by Mr. Kim) there were--ayes 235; noes 0.
  So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Kim], as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will state that pursuant to the 
Chair's prior announcement, this will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 220, 
noes 176, not voting 43, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 348]

                               AYES--220

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Darden
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Packard
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Valentine
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--176

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Swift
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--43

     Barton
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Bryant
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     Dornan
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Ford (MI)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Hansen
     Harman
     Huffington
     Hutto
     Kyl
     Lloyd
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McKeon
     Oberstar
     Oxley
     Parker
     Rangel
     Ridge
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Slattery
     Smith (NJ)
     Sundquist
     Synar
     Thomas (CA)
     Towns
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Washington
     Whitten
     Wyden

                              {time}  1236

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Barton for, with Mr. Rangel against.
       Mr. McCollum for, with Mr. Towns against.
       Mr. McKeon for, with Mr. Tucker against.

  Mr. GLICKMAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to the bill?
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], the chairman of the Committee on Banking, Finance 
and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask the chairman of the Committee on Banking, 
Finance and Urban Affairs a point of clarification regarding rent 
recalculations under subtitle (d) of title I of the bill. That subtitle 
deals with the refinancing of high interest rate mortgages now 20 years 
old on rental buildings in which some or all of the units are assisted 
with section 8 rental assistance.

                              {time}  1240

  The question I have concerns section 156 dealing with Maximum Monthly 
Rent under New Contracts and subsection (G), Allowance for Unique 
Costs.
  As the chairman and the other Members of this body know, some of 
these buildings provide special services, known as congregate services 
for frail elderly and disabled persons. These specially designed 
buildings often include an institutional-type kitchen with a common 
dining area where meals are prepared and served to those who are 
ambulatory but unable to fix their own meals. Congregate housing 
management may also deliver meals to individual units within the 
building to others who are homebound. Other special services in such 
congregate housing can include health services, assistance with 
grooming, dressing, and 24-hour support staff.
  My question is this, Mr. Chairman. Was it the committee's intent that 
the operating cost of these specialized services and facilities be 
included in the recalculation of rents as an ``allowance for unique 
costs'' as referenced in this section?
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAWYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, the gentleman from Ohio is correct. Under the 
subsection (G) of section 156, it is intended that these costs be taken 
into account, known as special services and facilities.
  Also, they would include those buildings currently providing 
congregate housing services to frail, elderly, and disabled persons as 
the gentleman's question concerning that aspect of the program.
  The answer is in the affirmative. It is.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the chairman for that 
clarification. I would also like to extend my thanks to the chairman 
and his staff, in particular Marion Morris and Nancy Libson, whose help 
on this issue has been superb and timely. I am particularly grateful.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
I thank the gentleman very much. We appreciate his keen interest in 
these programs.


                    amendment offered by mr. kennedy

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy:

       Strike line 21 on page 544 and all that follows through 
     line 23 on page 545 and insert the following:

     SEC. 812. REGULATIONS AND TRANSITION PROVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than April 1, 1995, the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (hereafter, ``the 
     Secretary'') shall publish final regulations to implement the 
     amendments made by this chapter. The final rule shall be 
     published after notice and opportunity for public comment in 
     accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code.
       (b) Transition Provisions.--
       (1) Emergency shelter grants program.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, during fiscal year 1995, the 
     Secretary shall allocate grants from amounts available for 
     such year under subtitle A of title IV of the Stewart B. 
     McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (as amended by this Act) in 
     accordance with the provisions of subtitle B of title IV of 
     the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (Emergency 
     Shelter Grants), as such provisions existed immediately 
     before the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Failure to publish regulations.--
       (A) In general.--If the Secretary fails to publish final 
     regulations as provided by subsection (a), the Secretary 
     shall distribute the amounts available for fiscal year 1995 
     under subtitle A of title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney 
     Homeless Assistance Act (as amended by this Act) (excluding 
     amounts allocated under paragraph (1)) in accordance with the 
     following provisions of title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney 
     Homeless Assistance Act, as such provisions existed 
     immediately before the enactment of this Act--
       (i) subtitle C (Supportive Housing);
       (ii) subtitle D (Safe Havens); and
       (iii) subtitle F (Shelter Plus Care).
       (B) Procedure.--For purposes of awarding assistance under 
     this paragraph, the Secretary may, as appropriate--
       (i) provide for use of a single application; and
       (ii) publish a single notice of funding availability.
       (3) Minimum amounts.--The Secretary shall determine the 
     amount to be allocated for each of the programs referred to 
     in this subsection, but the amount so allocated for each such 
     program shall not be less than the amount appropriated for 
     the program for fiscal year 1994.
       (c) Technical Assistance.--Of any amounts appropriated to 
     carry out section 2 of the HUD Demonstration Act of 1993 in 
     fiscal year 1995, the Secretary may use not more than 10 
     percent for providing technical assistance to assist 
     recipients under subtitle A of title IV of the Stewart B. 
     McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (as amended by this chapter) 
     to establish a program for providing homeless assistance in 
     accordance with the provisions of such subtitle.

     SEC. 813. REPORT ON SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY ASSISTANCE.

       Not later than July 1, 1995, the Secretary shall submit a 
     report to the Congress evaluating the effectiveness.

       On page 481, line 14, strike ``813'' and insert ``812(b)''.

  Mr. KENNEDY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Moran). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, in offering this amendment I want to 
acknowledge the help and support of Tom Ridge, who is unable to be here 
today. He has been a longtime advocate of the kind of changes to 
homelessness programs the Housing and Community Development Act of 1994 
contains.
  I've also worked with and gotten agreement from Chairman Gonzalez; 
Marge Roukema, the ranking member; Bruce Vento, chairman of the 
Speaker's Task Force on Homelessness; and HUD.
  The bill before us overhauls the whole Federal approach to attacking 
homelessness. It requires local communities, including local officials, 
nonprofits, veterans, social service providers and others to work 
together to develop a comprehensive strategy for attacking the homeless 
problem.
  The plan will turn the present McKinney grant programs into one 
flexible formula grant so that local communities can use the money 
where those communities have determined it is needed most, whether that 
is in supportive services such as alcohol and drug abuse counseling job 
search assistance, or transitional housing.
  This amendment gives HUD the opportunity to accelerate the 
implementation of the new federal homeless plan by giving that agency 
until April 1, 1995, to develop, take comment on, and publish the final 
regulations.
  If HUD is not successful, then the fiscal year 1995 funds will be 
disbursed as they have been for the past several years.
  I believe we ought to give Secretary Cisneros and his staff the 
opportunity to take on this challenge. All agree that the new plan goes 
in the right direction. This amendment simply allows HUD to get us 
there faster, if they are up to the challenge.
  It's become quite popular to bash the Federal Government. Here's a 
case where a Federal agency is asking to be given a chance to perform 
better. We ought to comply.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak to the amendment.
  In H.R. 3838, the committee authorized the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development to transition the McKinney Homeless Assistance 
Program from a six-program categorical grant to a single formula block 
grant. And this is a very good change. Again, it puts more emphasis and 
latitude to the local officials and homeless providers.
  However, in an effort to make sure that the States, counties, local 
governments, and all of those who provide homeless assistance under the 
McKinney Act had sufficient time to transition to the block grant, the 
committee delayed the implementation of the grant program to fiscal 
year 1996.
  The block grant does require a good deal of preparation on the part 
of the potential eligible communities including the creation of local 
boards, the development of a comprehensive community-wide strategy and 
a very detailed implementation plan.
  Quite frankly, I believe the jurisdictions will need an entire year 
to prepare for this. However, HUD feels many communities could 
implement the block grant as early as next year, and this amendment 
would give the Department an opportunity to publish rules to effect 
that implementation. This amendment would give HUD until April 1, 1995, 
to publish its final rules, or they are to issue the notice of funds 
availability for the regular McKinney grants.
  While the minority will not oppose this amendment at this time we do 
wish to express our concern that HUD can meet this requirement, and we 
will continue to review the issue in conference and test how realistic 
this effective date is.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and 
commend him for his work. This follows the outlines of an informal 
discussion that we have had with HUD. There is a lot of concern about 
the benchmarks to be hit in terms of establishing the rules and 
regulations and requirements of the Consolidated Grants Program and 
hence the idea of some transition time. I think this gives them an 
opportunity to in fact hit those benchmarks and to implement the new 
program in fiscal year 1995.
  I certainly support the amendment and will work in conference to try 
and refine and perfect it, along with other provisions of this new 
Consolidated Grant Program.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
chairman of the task force whose work allowed these changes to take 
place, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], who has just done 
outstanding work in terms of trying to coalesce all the various and 
conflicting homelessness programs across our country. The gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] deserves a very strong vote of confidence 
for the fine work that he has done.
  I want to also thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey for the fine 
work that she has done in allowing us to get these program changes 
implemented.
  Mr. SWETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SWETT. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my support for the 
amendment. I think making Government user friendly, improving the grant 
program, consolidating it is a good purpose and ultimately, we are 
going to see a lot of improvement in the program.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
rise to accept the Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. SWETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SWETT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time to have a colloquy 
with the gentleman. As I have raised to the gentleman's attention 
before, I feel that my State of New Hampshire is not receiving its fair 
share of funding under the McKinney Consolidation Act. I spoke 
favorably about the purpose and the intent of the consolidation.
  My concern is that of all 50 States, New Hampshire is the State that 
is not being adequately compensated.
  New Hampshire's homelessness population has grown considerably in 
recent years. Social workers who provide services to this population in 
my State are working on a shoestring budget, as it is. The Community 
Development Block Grant formula that will now be used to allocate funds 
provides, on average, less money per year than New Hampshire has 
traditionally received.
  The change will create a difficult challenge for the service 
providers in my State.
  I supported the $2 million minimum State grant language that the 
House has included in the amendment offered here today. However, I also 
support the hold harmless language that the Senate Banking Committee 
has included in its version of the bill.
  I hope the gentleman and his colleagues will consider New Hampshire's 
position when they review the McKinney Consolidation Act in the 
conference committee.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, let me assure the gentleman that that is 
our intention, when we go to conference. We can solve our differences. 
I agree with the gentleman. I, for one, have always been distressed to 
find that in the allocation under the formulas that we have attempted, 
sometimes successfully, sometimes not so successfully to formulate on a 
statutory level, are not being carried out with congressional intent by 
the administrator.

                              {time}  1250

  However, in this case I agree with the gentleman. I think we can find 
an accommodation to protect New Hampshire's rightful and just claims.
  Mr. SWETT. I thank the chairman very much.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  The amendment was agreed to.


               amendment offered by mr. bachus of alabama

  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bachus of Alabama: Page 478, after 
     line 23, insert the following new section (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 723. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM SEMI-ANNUAL OVERSIGHT.

       No funds authorized under the Financial Institutions 
     Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 or section 21A 
     of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act may be used by the 
     Resolution Trust Corporation for any purpose, unless the 
     Thrift Depositor Protection Oversight Board has fully 
     complied with the requirements of section 21A(k)(6) of the 
     Federal Home Loan Bank Act, including providing testimony 
     before the required Committees of the Congress concerning the 
     operations of the affordable housing program of the 
     Resolution Trust Corporation. This section shall cease to 
     apply upon the appearance by the Thrift Depositor Protection 
     Oversight Board before the Committees of the Congress 
     specified in section 21A(k)(6) of such Act.

  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I wish to reserve a point of order on 
this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Moran). The point of order of the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] is reserved.
  The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] is recognized for 5 minutes 
on his amendment.
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Gonzalez] for reserving his point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, we will recall that back in November of last year we 
appropriated $18.2 billion, and let me repeat that, $18.2 billion to 
the Resolution Trust Corporation. According to FIREA, which is in title 
V, the Oversight Board is supposed to appear before the Committee on 
Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs each 6 months to report on the 
activities of the RTC, on both the operation and the expenditures of 
funds. I will also remind this body that that law was passed in 1989.
  From its passage, Mr. Chairman, the Oversight Board, the Thrift 
Depositor Protection Oversight Board, to be specific, appeared before 
the Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs each 6 months to 
explain to the committee and to the American taxpayers exactly how that 
money was spent.
  Mr. Chairman, I have raised on this floor several objections to how 
they are spending our money. Members may recall articles which came out 
in the media in the past few months that say that the RTC is spending 
$4 of taxpayers' money for every dollar that they recover, $4 spent for 
every $1 recovered. Members may also recall that I have spoken on this 
floor at least three or four times concerning the fact that we have 3 
million Federal employees, and each of these 3 million Federal 
employees is paid according to one pay scale.
  Then we have RTC employees. They are paid 10 percent more than other 
Federal employees, and then they get a cost-of-living adjustment. What 
is that cost-of-living adjustment? Other Government employees, Social 
Security, Department of Energy, working here in Washington, get a 4 
percent regional pay increase. How about RTC? What are they giving 
their employees? They are giving them 22 percent in regional pay 
covered, 22 percent on top of the 10 percent. They are being paid 32 
percent more. Then back off the 5 percent that other employees are 
getting.
  How about in San Francisco? In San Francisco they get 10 percent more 
and then they vote, and they have another 32 percent regional pay 
difference. What do other employees of the Federal Government working 
in San Francisco get? Eight percent. Why this 24 percent difference on 
top of 10 percent? It costs millions of dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, we have missed three statutory deadlines. The Committee 
on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs and this House is not above the 
law. It is time for the Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban 
Affairs to require the Oversight Board to come before it. We need 
accountability on this $18.2 billion.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, if I understand the gentleman's amendment correctly, 
all he is trying to do is to get us to obey the law with regard to the 
RTC coming in to Congress and reporting on its activities, is that 
correct?
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. That is correct.
  Mr. WALKER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I would ask, by 
law they are supposed to do that every six months, is that correct?
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. That is right.
  Mr. WALKER. The fact is that we have not been requiring them to come 
in, because evidently the majority thinks it would be embarrassing to 
have them testify before the committee.
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I wrote the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Gonzalez], the chairman, on January 25, again on February 9, again 
on March 21, again on May 18, appealing for him to call the RTC 
oversight board before us so that I could ask important questions. We 
have not had a hearing. We had a hearing in January 1990. We had one in 
June 1990. We had one in January 1991. We had one in July 1991. We had 
one in February 1992. We had one in July 1992. We had one in March 
1993. About every 6 months we had one. Then we ended.
  The Senate recently held an oversight hearing. They complied with the 
very same law, but we are not. I have also written to the Speaker 
appealing to him to comply with the law.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent and at the request of Mr. Walker, Mr. Bachus of 
Alabama was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, if I understand the gentleman, every 6 
months for a period of several years we were holding these hearings. 
Now all of a sudden, because it appears as though such a hearing would 
be embarrassing, we have decided that we are above the law in the House 
of Representatives and we will not comply with what the law requires. 
Is that what the gentleman is telling us?
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. That is exactly the clear situation.
  Mr. WALKER. And the gentleman's amendment is aimed at seeing to it 
that we comply with the law?
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. That is correct. I will say this, and I am 
reading from the law, a report is filed, and that report was filed by 
the RTC. They are to come before us no later than 30 days after that 
report.
  I would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], they 
have filed three reports, and the last report that they filed, they 
filed a report in October of 1992 under the Bush administration, and we 
had an oversight hearing called by the chairman. Since then there have 
been three reports filed. The last of those was April of 1994. We have 
yet to have an opportunity, as the Committee on Banking, Finance, and 
Urban Affairs, to question the RTC on the $18 billion.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from 
Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  The gentleman may recall, Mr. Chairman, this mirrors something we 
attempted to do on the floor not too long ago on an appropriation bill 
on a recommittal motion, so the gentleman has approached it from the 
authorizing committee that he serves on, the Committee on Banking, 
Finance, and Urban Affairs, and the Subcommittee on Housing and 
Community Development, but the same thing applies in the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  In the Committee on Appropriations, none of these agencies were 
called before the RTC Inspector General, the FSLIC Board. None of them 
were called before the subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations 
to testify this year on their budget request, their own budget request, 
the administration's submission of their budget request, because there 
was the fear that perhaps in the subcommittee some questions about 
their operations might be asked that might in some way relate to this 
investigation.
  Mr. Chairman, we have to only not complied with the law, but in the 
area of the appropriations, we have appropriated money without ever 
calling these agencies to justify their budget requests. I find it not 
only strange but absolutely incredible, absolutely incredible that we 
are doing this kind of thing, that we are spending money for these 
agencies, allowing them to go ahead and operate and spend the moneys 
without ever coming before this body to justify their budget requests.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's point here is one that needs to 
be taken very seriously by this body.
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman. I will 
point out that each month we find a new revelation from the RTC, and we 
are the body and the Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs 
is the committee. We had salaries, when people were getting salary 
bonuses, of tens of thousands of dollars. We have an agency that is 
going out of existence by law in about 2 years, but they are spending 
$300,000 to renovate. We owe it to the American people to call them in. 
I would like to ask them some very serious questions about their 
operations and their expenditures.

                              {time}  1300


                             Point of Order

  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on the point of 
order I have reserved.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Moran). The gentleman will state his 
point of order.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman is 
beyond the scope of the bill, as well as not being germane. Even the 
brief discussion here should indicate that.
  Under the amendment, conditions are made against appropriations 
provided in a completely different law. In addition, the amendment 
affects operations, programs and policies that are not addressed in the 
pending bill. Accordingly, the amendment does not meet the test of 
germaneness, it violates rule 16 of the rules of the House, and let me 
add that it also violates Cannon's Precedents, volume 5, section 5932.
  Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Alabama wish to be 
heard on the point of order?
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to the 
point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The chair will hear the gentleman's 
explanation.
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, when I offered this amendment 
before the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development, a point 
of order was raised. Prior to offering my amendment, an amendment was 
offered and that amendment amended FIRREA, called for expenditures, and 
dealt with affordable housing and with appraisals.
  I raised the point of order knowing that I was going to amend FIRREA 
which the gentleman now says that I cannot do under his point of order.
  My point of order to an amendment amending FIRREA was overruled by 
the gentleman from Texas. The gentleman made his ruling, and I asked 
him, I said to the gentleman in making my point of order, I raised an 
objection saying that the amendment was an amendment to FIRREA. I asked 
him if it was appropriate to amend FIRREA. The gentleman responded that 
it was.
  I in return said, ``Because it deals with appraisals and affordable 
housing?''
  The gentleman's response was yes. And because the general subject 
matter of appraisal is a subject matter in various sections of this 
bill.
  He went on to say that amendments dealing with affordable housing and 
with appraisals were in order. I had my amendment read at length, 
because, in fact, what I am asking the Oversight Protection Board to do 
is to come before the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs 
and explain the operation of their Affordable Housing Program and their 
appraisal process, an amendment to FIRREA.
  I would simply say to the gentleman, if we are going to allow 
amendments even though they are an amendment to FIRREA because they 
deal with affordable housing and appraisals, let us allow both 
amendments, not simply one amendment.
  I would also say to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], I 
respect that he has given me the right, that the gentleman has reserved 
his point of order. I want to thank him. I want to thank him for giving 
me that opportunity to speak about what I consider to be a very 
important issue. I would simply say to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Gonzalez], if I am out of order and if the Parliamentarian tells me 
that I am out of order, I will respect the decision of the 
Parliamentarian. But in doing so, I would urge the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Gonzalez] to bring the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban 
Affairs into compliance with the law.
  We have now missed three important dates in calling the RTC to 
accountability. The $18.2 billion we appropriated last November. 
Absolutely no accountability. That is evidenced by news stories 
reaching us daily and weekly about absurd spending practices, the 
American taxpayer being charged over $1 for copying per page. Let us 
call the RTC to accountability. If it is not here today through my 
amendment, then by the call of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] 
to have them appear before us.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there further argument on the question 
of the point of order?
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order for the 
reasons stated, and fail to see where any argument has been made other 
than to actions taken on the committee level in which I ruled in 
accordance with the rules of the House and the committee. The 
gentleman, let me say for the record, appealed the ruling of the chair. 
I was upheld by a strictly party line vote. But I think that has 
nothing to do with the pending issue here. I must insist on my point of 
order.
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the chairman of the 
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, I would urge the 
gentleman to call the RTC Oversight Board before the Committee on 
Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs and remind the gentleman of the law 
and ask the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] either in response to 
my letters or to this body to give some explanation of why that RTC 
Oversight Board has not been called before us.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Moran). The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The bill currently before the Committee authorizes funding for a 
broad range of public housing programs. The amendment seeks to restrict 
funding provided under other acts for the resolution of failed 
financial institutions and to condition that availability on 
congressional hearings in part on a different subject.
  As such, the amendment is not germane. The point of order is 
sustained.
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I respect the point of order. I 
would point out to the Members that the very act which you say is not 
now germane, there was an attempt to amend that act in committee and my 
point of order to that attempt was overruled.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. BERMAN. Am I correct in understanding that there are no further 
amendments known to the Chair to be offered to this bill?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. There are no further amendments at the desk 
at this time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez].
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Is the gentleman asking to speak under your 
prerogative, recognized for 5 minutes, or is the gentleman offering an 
amendment? Because in order to answer his question, I have no knowledge 
of any pending amendment or at least any brought to my attention. If 
the gentleman is going to offer an amendment, I would want to be timely 
reserving a point of order pending my review of that amendment.
  Mr. BERMAN. If I may reclaim my time, what we are trying to do, using 
my time under my motion to strike the last word, we are trying to deal 
with the imperfections in the Kim amendment as amended by the Roukema 
amendment which was adopted by the House. Those imperfections include 
the fact that the way the amendment was written covers people who are 
here in lawful status. It seeks just to deal with people who are here 
illegally, but its language covers classifications of people who are 
here under lawful status. I would have brought that point to this body 
except that I was in a committee hearing at the time of the debate and 
when I got here, there was already a quorum call.
  Second, the language fails to contain the provisions which we have 
always provided, whether it was the employer sanctions language in the 
1986 bill or whether it was the language in the earthquake relief bill 
or any other disclaimer bills, which made sure as we ought to 
differentiate between the people who are here lawfully and the people 
who are not here lawfully that there was no discrimination based on 
national origin or citizenship status. In other words, there are many 
categories of people who are here legally. There are many categories of 
people who may appear to an agency, private or public, to be 
immigrants, and we do not want that mere fact of language, of national 
origin, of ethnic group, of surname, to be a basis for denying the 
assistance provided in this act.

                              {time}  1310

  So we are trying to see if there is a way of addressing the 
imperfections in the Kim amendment which was adopted without redoing 
the fight about the basic question of whether or not that assistance 
should be provided. It is for that reason that I have made the motion 
to strike while we are getting that language ready.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERMAN. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I have no copy of anything that relates 
to the gentleman's amendment or the issue he is raising. But I think it 
would be more appropriate at this point in time if we considered this 
in conference. Certainly the complexity of what the gentleman has 
outlined here cannot be taken up here on the floor without prior 
consultation and having all of us study the issue. So I think it would 
be most appropriate for those issues to be raised in conference.
  Mr. BERMAN. If I may reclaim my time, I am not sure why the other 
side needs more time for prior consultation than this side had for 
prior consultation on the Kim amendment.
  But the problem with the conference committee strategy is that were 
the other body to include the same language, there would be no issue in 
the conference committee. These are important subsidiary questions to 
the fundamental question raised by the Kim amendment which must be 
cleaned up.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. The only part of what the gentleman has said that I 
disagree with is that the Kim language, formerly known as the Roukema 
language, was well known and out there for days, and everybody had 
every opportunity to go over it at that time.
  Mr. BERMAN. The gentlewoman's point is well taken, except it was the 
Rohrabacher language then.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say to my distinguished friends on the other 
side, particularly the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning], the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], and others who I have enjoyed a 
good relationship with that, as the other side has often used the move 
to strike the requisite number of words to allow time to do what the 
Senate refers to as a filibuster, we then in the process are trying to 
bring about some clarification on this side, and I have been given the 
dubious responsibility to do that. So I would ask that the Members 
indulge me and Members on this side as those who are very concerned 
about this go about the task that they are in the remaining 4 minutes 
to find a way to quickly bring to conclusion their efforts.
  I will say this, however, because I do see the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], who has had a distinguished career in this 
House, and who has worked well on many matters. I would suggest to her 
and to others who are part of the Committee on Banking, Finance and 
Urban Affairs, who serve on the minority staff, what a pleasure it has 
been over the years to work with them, and to try to bring to cloture a 
number of issues that have come before this body, oftentimes issues 
that sometimes divide the House. So her leadership and the leadership 
of others in that regard is greatly appreciated.
  I am also happy that our chairman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Gonzalez], has worked through this process and moved us to the point we 
are today. The distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has 
often made the case of the distinction between the two Houses and how 
there is no filibuster here. So in this 5-minute period I am 
attempting, while my distinguished colleagues in the Hispanic Caucus 
move toward a conclusion of their efforts, not to filibuster this 
issue, but certainly to allow them the time under this rule to strike 
the requisite number of words to do that. It has been a pleasure, I 
know, on behalf of all on this side to try to find a working 
arrangement, and I am getting indication now that perhaps there is some 
cloture being brought to the discussion.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MFUME. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the 
gentleman because his remarks have been as substantive as many I have 
heard on this floor, but delivered much more politely. So I would like 
to congratulate the gentleman for the civility with which he has 
carried out this task.
  Mr. MFUME. I thank the very distinguished gentleman and all others 
who wish to speak, but in this 5-minute timeframe do not have the time 
to speak.
  May I ask the Chair how much time is remaining under my motion to 
strike?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. Moran]. the gentleman from Maryland has 
2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, looking at the other side, I do notice that 
some more distinguished Members of the minority party have joined us 
who realize also the need to try to find a way out of this slight 
impasse that we have come into. There is a desire by many on this side 
to try to do that.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MFUME. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I recall not so long ago the 
gentleman rising on the floor saying I know if you shorten this 
conversation that some of us are going to vote with you.
  Mr. MFUME. The gentleman reminds me of a conversation I once had with 
him.
  However, I am being told to continue my discussion on this side, and 
I will attempt to do that.
  I also see the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham] has joined us, and it has been a pleasure in the last 18 
months trying to work with him on a number of issues.
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], who always reminds us how 
important it is to buy American has joined us in this debate, and we 
certainly welcome his presence and all that he has brought to this 
matter. We will be bringing it to a cloture soon, I think.
  I would like to ask the chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would advise the gentleman from 
Maryland that he has 1 long minute remaining.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MFUME. I am happy to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
New Jersey.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, at this time on a Friday afternoon, I 
have to rise and congratulate the gentleman, who is a good colleague on 
our committee, and I have to say that I have never heard anyone speak 
so long and say nothing in a long time.
  Mr. MFUME. I thank the gentlewoman for her kind remarks.
  Mr. Chairman, I see we have been joined by the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce], who has worked so hard on this 
measure, a Member of our party who has helped Chairman Gonzalez and 
others through his chairmanship to get that done. I expect that very 
soon we will have some conclusion to the discussions on this side.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Maryland yield back 
the remainder of his time?
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the chairman of our committee, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], if he might respond to some 
questions.
  Mr. Chairman, if this bill passes in its present form, certain 
categories of legal residents will be excluded from receiving 
assistance under the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. I would like to 
ask the chairman if he thinks this issue can be clarified in the 
conference committee so that no one who is in this country legally 
would be precluded from applying for that assistance?
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I had been trying to seek the attention 
of all of those concerned to say that rather than shadow boxing here, 
not knowing exactly what we are getting concocted at the last minute, 
that there is nothing I had heard to date by those proposing a 
correction on a technical basis that we cannot take care of as we 
proceed in regular order in going to conference. There is no question 
of that.
  I think the gentleman's concern is well expressed. The reason I had 
attempted to be heard and intervene with a point of order at the time 
the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] offered her amendment 
was precisely for that reason. So we have had a vote and the will of 
the House has been expressed. I think at this point if the gentleman 
will take my assurances, and I think the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
[Mrs. Roukema] would add to that, thus far we have been able to work 
that way when it comes to a matter of technical improvement which I 
think this involves. In other words, I do not think that it was the 
intention of the authors of the amendment, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Kim] or the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] 
to deprive and legal resident or American citizen.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERMAN. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, let me observe, and I really repeat in 
another way way what I said earlier, that certainly this would be 
something that we would be happy to consider in conference.

                              {time}  1320

  The chairman has said it is of a technical nature. I repeat and 
reiterate that as long as you bring to us with specificity, with some 
specificity, the concerns and we have it in advance, I would be more 
than happy to consider it.
  Mr. BERMAN. Given the hour, given the assurances of the Chair and the 
ranking member and given the hope that the issue of lawful status, of 
nondiscrimination, and of the appropriate standard to apply can be 
dealt with in a conference committee so that we can really make the 
intentions of the author only apply to the people he intended them to 
apply to in his own expressions, I will not offer an amendment at this 
particular time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment.
  Just some time ago during the passage of the Kim provision, we spoke 
about the denying of services to people who are here unless they can 
prove that they are citizens. My amendment would speak to that issue in 
the following fashion.


                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  Is the gentleman from New York speaking on striking the last word----
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York yield for 
a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Or offering an amendment? He cannot do both.
  The CHAIRMAN pro termpore. The time is controlled by the gentleman 
from New York. The gentleman from New York must yield to the gentleman 
for a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman has not been yielded to for 
that purpose.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, do we have an amendment offered at this 
point, or, as the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] properly 
points----
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. There is a pro forma amendment offered when 
the gentleman rises to strike the last word, and the gentleman from New 
York has the time, the remainder of the 5 minutes that was accorded.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. The gentleman is not responsive. The gentleman has not 
been responsive to my parliamentary inquiry. My parliamentary inquiry 
is----
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas will suspend. The 
time is controlled by the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I am raising a parliamentary inquiry that the Chair has 
not been responsive to, and that is, is it understanding----
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman 
from New York will determine whether he yields for a parliamentary 
inquiry. There is no amendment pending.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. OK. That is what I wanted to know.
  Mr. SERRANO. I would ask a parliamentary inquiry as to the procedure 
for proposing my amendment which I have in front of me.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman must yield back his time on 
the pro forma amendment. Then the gentleman will be recognized to offer 
an amendment which the Clerk can then read.
  Mr. SERRANO. I will be recognized for how long?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will be recognized for 5 
minutes on any amendment to the bill.
  Mr. SERRANO. Well, under that understanding, I yield back the pro 
forma time, and would ask to strike the last word or whatever the 
language is so that I can propose this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman has yielded back his time on 
the pro forma amendment. The gentleman will now offer his amendment.


                    AMENDMENT oFFERED BY MR. SERRANO

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Chair would advise the gentleman from Texas that the Clerk must 
first read the amendment before any further inquiry is in order.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I understand.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will read the amendment, if 
possible.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Oh, the Clerk cannot read it?
  Mr. SERRANO. Is it in order for me to ask unanimous consent to waive 
the reading so I can explain my amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will read the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Serrano: Insert at the end, the 
     following new title: Assurance against lost shifting--
     Notwithstanding Sec. 852 of this Act--None of the funds made 
     available in this may be used to implement, administer, or 
     enforce any requirement or restriction established in this 
     section when the requirement or restriction--
       (1) is based on immigration status; and
       (2) either--
       (A) imposes any additional administrative burden on (i) the 
     Federal Government; (ii) any State or local government; or 
     (iii) any contractor or grantee receiving such funds; or
       (B) shifts the cost of providing any service from the 
     Federal Government to (i) any State or local government; or 
     (ii) any contractor or grantee receiving such funds.

  Mr. SERRANO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I object.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will continue reading.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, we have no copy of this amendment, Mr. 
Chairman. I want it read.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. That is the 
purpose of the Clerk reading the amendment. There has been objection 
not the request to suspend the reading of the amendment and, because of 
that objection, the Clerk will now complete the reading of the 
amendment.
  The Clerk completed the reading of the amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against 
the amendment.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this 
amendment, pending the chance to review it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order will be reserved.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I also reserve a point of order on 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The reservation would extend to all 
Members. The point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, it really is not my intent to cause such 
discord in the House, but a very important amendment, in my opinion, 
was passed before which speaks to the people, people who are in this 
country and who have to prove their citizenship prior to getting 
emergency aid.
  In order to accomplish this, localities, State, city, county 
governments, in order to accomplish this, FEMA, and in order to 
accomplish this, not-for-profit organizations, would have to conduct a 
study, as has been discussed on other similar amendments on the floor 
before, would have to conduct a study and research every individual 
that comes up during an emergency situation.
  We feel that this would add a burden to local governments and to 
organizations, and funds to provide for that burden are not addressed 
in this bill at all. So what my amendment speaks to is to say that if, 
in fact, as we know it will, these burdens are added, and since no 
provisions have been made to pay for them, then that provision should 
not take effect, because we have made no provision for that payment to 
be made to the local governments.
  Now, it would seem to me that this is not such an unreasonable 
statement. After all, it is the people from the other side of the aisle 
who spend hour after hour after hour telling us about unfunded 
mandates. But the only time, it seems to me, that they put aside the 
issue if it is an unfunded mandate or not is when they have the 
opportunity to beat up on someone who may be in need of some food or 
shelter and who may not be able to prove at that point whether they are 
a citizen or not.
  I have said on many occasions here that I do not carry with me any 
papers that indicate the fact that I was born an American citizen, and 
during a flood in the Bronx or an earthquake in the Bronx, I would not 
want the Federal or local agency to ask me to prove that I am a 
citizen.
  Therefore, in view of the desire of the other side to forgo their 
usual argument against expenditures of money and to forgo their usual 
argument against unfunded mandates, then let them live up to their word 
and support this amendment which I have proposed today that says, and I 
repeat for the last time, if it costs money, since we have not provided 
moneys for it, we should not carry it out.
  Keep in mind, as a last point, that our records indicate that FEMA is 
an agency that spends only 2 percent of its budget on overhead and 
administration. It is an agency that makes dollars directly go into 
solving some of these problems, these humane problems that we face. So 
if we could not convince some people from a humane point of view not to 
approve the Kim amendment, as amended by the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey, then let us at least speak to what we always speak about: If 
you do not have moneys to pay for it, then do not have it go into 
effect.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Moran). Does the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Gonzalez] continue to insert on his reservation of a point of 
order?
  Mr. GONZALEZ. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words in order to enter into a colloquy and get the 
author's intent of this amendment, as we have just been given a chance 
to read it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Then the gentleman continues to reserve his 
point of order.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I continue to reserve my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will be recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Serrano], as I gather from his remarks, the thrust of this 
amendment is to make sure that under the new section 852, the Kim 
amendment, the cost of providing the identification is not laid on the 
contract service providers, the nonprofit and the like, is that 
correct? Is that the main thrust of the gentleman's amendment?
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is partly correct. It is my belief that 
the Kim amendment, as amended, would place a burden on Government 
agencies and private providers, and, since there is nothing in this 
bill that provides for recapturing those dollars, then my amendment 
says that that provision should not take effect when it causes a 
burden.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, in that case, I am prepared to accept the 
amendment and not proceed on reserving my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any other Member insist on a point of 
order on the amendment?
  Does any other Member insist on reserving a point of order?
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order will continue to be 
reserved.
  The gentlewoman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, it would seem to me, and let me ask, 
because there is no indication of the amounts that we are talking about 
here, would it not be appropriate to add as line 18 of what I have, and 
what I assume is the same copy that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Gonzalez] is reading from, if we add on that line, ``authorize such 
sums as necessary.''
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, would the gentlewoman repeat the question?
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, if we added to line 18 of the copy that 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Serrano] has given us, ``authorize 
such sums as necessary,'' to implement this provision.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we want to leave that to the agencies that deal 
with this. Incidentally, I realize that I gave the gentlewoman a draft.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Well, then the gentleman does not have the 
authorization, and that is fine; that is fine with me.
  Mr. Chairman, I accept it.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  the CHAIRMAN pro tempore. If the gentleman would suspend, the Chair 
must inquire if any Member insists upon reserving a point of order? 
Otherwise the point of order will be withdrawn.
  The point of order is withdrawn.
  The Chair will recognize the gentleman from California [Mr. Kim] for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. KIM. I think the Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify this amendment that we passed a 
while ago and to which we are now coming back and adding another 
amendment to the amendment already passed.
  Mr. Chairman, the cost of identification, in my opinion, is really 
ridiculous, because to place a burden to prove the citizenship or legal 
residenceship of two Government agencies, that is what you are talking 
about. But it already happens to private enterprise. If you are a 
private business owner, it is your duty to ask the applicant whether 
they are legal residents. If you do not comply with that, you are going 
to be seriously penalized by the Government agency.
  Why does the Government agency have to be exempted? They should 
follow the same law as private enterprises, they should ask the same 
question as private enterprises are asking. I do not see where that is 
an additional burden to ask the applicant whether they are or are not 
legal residents.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KIM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Kim] should really 
be supportive of my amendment because it is the Governor from the 
gentleman's State of California who is saying he does not want the 
Federal Government not to help them with the immigration situation in 
his State.
  During one of the amendments of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher] we established that in California and New York the 
identification of everybody who may be here legally or not, but asking 
all people who may be suspected of not being here legally would cost 
anywhere from $5 to $10 per head. That was established on the floor 
here during the education debate on Mr. Rohrabacher's amendment.
  So this amendment, really, if you analyze it, would be right in line 
with the request made by the Governor of the State of California.
  Mr. KIM. This amendment applies to FEMA's loan application process. 
Again, it is exempted from the situations when the President declares 
an emergency; then the whole amendment does not apply. It is only in 
the case with individual applications coming in the Government that the 
agency is obligated to ask them whether they are a legal resident. I 
just do not follow the gentleman's argument.
  MR. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KIM. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. MFUME. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I think what the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] 
was saying succinctly is that this is another unfunded mandate that we 
are putting on States, and, as such, he argues that the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Kim] should be supportive in that regard.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if that is the case, I 
think we have to fund the private enterprises also, because they have 
to prove citizenship also.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, if that is 
indeed the intent of the amendment, and I doubt that it is, but if that 
is the intent of the amendment, then they should be perfectly willing 
to accept my amendment to the amendment, which indicates a way of 
funding which is ``such sums for implementing the provision.'' If that 
is the intent, then I would propose that I have an amendment to the 
amendment.
  Mr. KIM. If that is the intent, I have no objection.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a late hour, but especially for the State of 
California I would like to remind the House that this is a very, very 
important amendment. It will kill the gentleman from California's 
amendment. When they talk about unfunded mandates, in the State of 
California, especially in the border States, the Government, this 
Government, under OBRA 1986, demanded and set into law that we fund for 
illegal immigration into the United States, we fund it. But to date we 
have not funded it, and that is the unfunded mandate. The Governor, 
when he speaks of the Governor, the Governor of California has 
requested billions of dollars to pay for that unfunded mandate and, to 
date, has been denied. We are talking billions and billions of dollars 
of unfunded mandate for illegal immigrants, and every time we try to 
bring it on the House floor, except for the border patrol, we are 
denied, ``This is not the place to do it.''
  What we are asking is just like in business, before you receive 
Federal services, the gentleman and I, for example, some day are going 
to have to apply for another job, and when we do, I do not mind walking 
up and saying, ``Yes, I am a legal resident of this country. I, under 
FEMA or other emergency, request Federal assistance that I deserve 
because I am an American citizen.''

                              {time}  1340

  That is all we are asking. There is a blatance of abuse of the 
system, not only in education, but in health care, and in the criminal 
system as well, and ever under the emergency services. It is not too 
much to ask that someone identify themselves as an American citizen.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham], my friend, for yielding. I would think that he would want 
to accept this amendment for the very reasons he just stated.
  Mr. Chairman, what we have done through this amendment that just 
passed, the Rohrabacher-Kim amendment, is imposed upon State, city, 
county, local governments, but not just them, but also now nonprofit 
charitable agencies like Red Cross, the Catholic Charities, any 
religious organizations, the requirement that they do the 
administrative task that the INS does. If we are going to tell them to 
do this before they can get the Federal funds, let us at least have the 
decency to give them the monies with which to pay for the 
administrative burden of doing that.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the problem is 
that, even when we come for money for the unfunded mandate for illegal 
immigration--let me finish with what I am saying--the problem is that 
there is not enough money in the Government to fund an unfunded mandate 
that we have laid on the States today, and, when we talk about unfunded 
mandates, the Brady bill is an unfunded mandate, the motor-voter is an 
unfunded mandate, illegal immigration is an unfunded mandate. What we 
are asking, before we force the States to give out money, whether it is 
emergency or anything else, that they identify themselves as an 
American citizen. That is not too much to ask.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I appreciate it.
  My understanding is some people here offer an amendment, the 
gentleman from New Jersey offered an amendment to an amendment, they 
agree, everybody agrees. I do not doubt our capacity to fall further 
into disagreement, so I ask, ``Why don't we vote already; just stop 
because everybody agrees?''
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time just to yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that there be added 
to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] 
the language drafted by the gentlewoman from New Jersey that such sums, 
as necessary, be authorized for the purposes of this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair advises the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Berman] that the amendment must be submitted in writing.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. How much time?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time is controlled by the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. My parliamentary inquiry, if the 
gentleman would yield, without violating the rules, is this: Mr. 
Chairman, how much time would the gentleman have to write that down 
before we would be in violation of the rules and not proceeding 
promptly? I mean obviously we could not wait an hour. As I understand 
the ruling, the gentleman has to write that down. My question is how 
much time he would have to write it down before we would be in 
violation of the rules because I know the gentleman does not want to 
be.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise that the time is controlled by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].
  The Chair wishes to advise particularly the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] that he did not state a parliamentary 
inquiry.


                             point of order

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Will the gentleman yield?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] 
controls the time.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from 
Massachusetts if he would just assist me and have a brief colloquy for 
just a moment.
  Would the gentleman please, for the purposes of this gentleman, 
restate what it is that he was stating in his parliamentary inquiry 
which was ruled out of order?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, because he is finished writing, and 
the Chair hurt my feelings.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


   amendment offered by mrs. roukema to the amendment offered by mr. 
                                serrano

  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment:
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Roukema to the amendment offered 
     by Mr. Serrano: At the end of the text proposed to be 
     inserted by the amendment, insert the following: There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     to carry out section 852 of this Act.

  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I am going to abbreviate everything I 
have to say here. I think it is obvious to everyone who has been in on 
this, although I would like to have the comments from the gentleman 
from California who has been working with me on this. We are dealing 
here with the essence of the problem that the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Serrano] has raised. That is the question of whether or not there 
were unfunded mandates, and it is my understanding now that it is 
recognized that this will authorize the sums necessary so that it will 
both protect what an overwhelming majority of this House voted for in 
terms of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Kim] as amended by Mrs. Roukema, and at the same time deal with the 
possible confusion over the unfunded mandate or the possible strain on 
the localities and the private service providers.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] because the modest and ill-
advised majority that adopted the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Kim], surely the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] should authorize the Federal 
Government to provide the funds, and, therefore, I urge everyone to 
accept the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, yet again politics made strange 
bedfellows.
  Mr. Chairman, this housing bill and the many issues the committee had 
to confront could not have been achieved in this timely fashion without 
the fine work of our committee staffs.
  I would like to thank: Vince Morelli, my subcommittee staff member, 
as well as Joseph Ventrone, Clinton Jones, Valerie Baldwin, and Becky 
Winborn, our minority professional housing staff members.
  In addition I would like to personally thank Chairman Gonzalez' fine 
staff: Nancy Libson, staff director; Paul Ceja, Marion Morris, Angie 
Garcia, Rosa Garay, June Lawrence, Buffy Bromberg Allen, and Annie 
Dupee.
  Finally, I would like to thank our legislative counsel, Paul Callen, 
for his tireless efforts in drafting this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] to the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano].
  The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. MACHTLEY. Madam Chairman, I rise today to support the amendment 
offered by my colleague from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].
  This amendment is vital to ensuring safe and peaceful living 
conditions for our seniors who reside in federally assisted housing.
  Congress enacted the mixed population provision of the Housing and 
Community Development Act of 1992 in response to the increasing 
conflicts between seniors and younger disabled residents occurring in 
public housing facilities. This body realized that this was a growing 
problem, and I was pleased to support that legislation.
  But even though that legislation was signed into law in 1992, the 
problem has not yet been solved, and many would argue that the conflict 
between the seniors and the disabled is growing worse.
  The bill before us today makes strides toward solving its dilemma. By 
consolidating the eviction process, local housing authorities will have 
greater ability to remove drug abusers and alcoholics from mixed 
population housing units.
  But the bill does not go nearly far enough. And that is why the Blute 
amendment is necessary.
  Why shouldn't we require that alcoholics and drug abusers sign an 
oath to the effect that they will not continue to abuse substances as a 
condition of residing in a mixed population facility?
  Any why shouldn't we require that after three documented infractions, 
the housing authority be required to evict the offender?
  These are necessary rules to protect our seniors who are dependent on 
federally assisted housing.
  During March of this year, my office received letters from local 
public housing authorities from throughout Rhode Island, as well as 
hundreds of signatures from residents of housing complexes, demanding 
that the mixed population housing controversy be resolved.
  The Blute amendment works toward that goal. It gives teeth to the 
rhetoric that has been circulating between Congress and HUD for more 
than 2 years.
  It is time that we send a strong message to young drug and alcohol 
abusers that their disruption and harassment of seniors will no longer 
be tolerated.
  I urge my colleagues to support this much needed amendment.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Madam Chairman, I rise today to express my 
support for the Blute amendment of which I am a cosponsor to H.R. 3838, 
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1994. This amendment will 
help end the terror that the our senior citizens are currently facing 
in elderly public housing facilities.
  The mixing of elderly and disabled individuals in senior housing 
facilities has had disastrous results. Part of the problem is that the 
definition of disabled has come to include recovering alcoholics and 
drug abusers. The lifestyles of these younger individuals often serve 
to disrupt the quality of life in elderly public housing. Too often 
these younger disabled individuals are harassing the elderly residents 
and making life miserable for them. This amendment offers us a vehicle 
to end this terrible injustice.
  Elderly public housing should only house the individuals that are 
willing to promote the greater good of the community. This provision 
will require the eviction of individuals who commit crimes or cause 
disruptions on a continuing basis. I am proud to have cosponsored this 
amendment which will help us rid housing that is designed for the 
elderly of troublemaking nonelderly former substance abusers and 
alcoholics. This amendment goes further than the existing bill language 
by mandating the eviction of these rule breakers. I am also pleased 
that this language will strengthen the front-end screening process so 
that these individuals are not placed in elderly housing to begin with.
  We owe it to our seniors to provide them with public housing that is 
safe, peaceful, and quiet. Let's support this amendment and put an end 
to the loud music, muggings, shakedowns, prostitution, and drug deals 
that are terrorizing seniors today.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise today in support of 
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1994, and to commend the 
Banking Committee for adding provisions which will expand home 
ownership opportunities through the Federal Housing Administration 
[FHA] single family mortgage insurance program.
  Madam Chairman, there has been much public debate about the merits of 
increasing FHA loan limits. Opponents of raising limits contend that 
doing so would undermine the ability of low-income families to obtain 
loans. I take issue with this assertion. To the contrary, increasing 
the cap on loan amounts would do two important things: One, it would 
shore up FHA's insurance fund reserve, thus expanding loan services to 
many who would otherwise be unable to own a home. Two, it would bring 
service to hard-working middle-income Americans who live in areas with 
particularly high-cost housing.
  Madam Chairman, my district, the sixth district of California, is 
just such an area. Marin and Sonoma Counties comprise one of the 
highest cost housing markets in the United States, where owning a home 
is becoming terribly difficult for my constituents. Increasing FHA's 
loan limits for high-cost areas, like mine, would make the American 
dream of home ownership a reality for many of my constituents.
  This important legislation raises the FHA's maximum loan ceiling from 
$151,250 to $172,678, serving families with combined incomes of 
$63,000. In my district, those amounts constitute neither high-cost 
housing nor high income. Increasing the limit simply allows more of my 
constituents to use the FHA program on the same basis as borrowers in 
more moderately priced markets. I will continue to press for changes in 
this program that will make it more sensitive to the high costs of 
housing in many local areas such as the sixth district of California.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this critically 
important bill which will increase the opportunity of home ownership 
for millions of working families.
  Ms. HARMAN. Madam Chairman, I rise to support the housing and 
community development reauthorization bill, and applaud provisions to 
involve local communities earlier in the process of determining uses 
for surplus military property.
  Numerous communities, including San Pedro in my district, are 
experiencing the painful human consequences of defense downsizing. In a 
well-intended effort to put surplus military property to good use, the 
Congress passed the 1987 Stuart B. McKinney Act and President Reagan 
signed it.
  But 1987 was another time--before the cumulative impact of two rounds 
of base closures. And the McKinney Act failed, in my view, to provide 
adequately for community input.
  The result is that communities are polarized when, apparently out of 
nowhere, they learn that applications have been awarded to provide 
homeless housing, sometimes in massive numbers, in the midst of 
established residential neighborhoods.
  There is need to house and otherwise help the homeless, but those 
efforts, to succeed, must be community-based.
  Language in this bill creates a new process to follow the 
announcement of closed bases for redevelopment and use. In essence, it 
gives local authorities a year to develop a reuse plan which would 
reasonably meet the needs of the homeless in the community. DOD would 
use this plan as the preferred alternative for disposing of the 
property unless HUD determines it is inadequate. Only after a negative 
finding by HUD would the more draconian procedures of the present 
McKinney Act come into effect.
  Madam Chairman, these changes are a real victory for neighborhoods, 
and much credit is owed to my colleague from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  We must do more. I will soon introduce another amendment to the 
McKinney Act to provide additional notice and community involvement at 
later stages in the process. I am grateful to the members of the San 
Pedro Area Reuse Committee and its chairman, Doane Liu, for their 
input, and to the Governor's California Military Base Reuse Task Force.
  Government must be a partner with communities on redevelopment 
decisions. The provisions I've described begin to build a new 
partnership and undo the adversarial relationship that now exists.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by Chairman Gonzalez since it includes an effort to right a 
serious wrong and ensure that Federal CDBG funds are not used for 
piracy.
  The Briggs and Stratton Corp., of the Milwaukee area has recently 
announced that it will be moving 2,000 jobs out of Wisconsin in order 
to expand its operations into Missouri, with the help of a $209,000 
community development block grant. Therefore, the sad irony is that 
Wisconsin taxpayers have unknowingly played a role in the loss of their 
own jobs.
  We all know the purpose of the community development block grant: to 
spur economic growth and improve life for low- and moderate-income 
residents of an area. There are many examples of the positive use of 
these funds in the Milwaukee area alone. In a typical year, examples 
include improvements to more than 4,000 housing units, jobs training or 
placement assistance to several hundred residents, and expansion or 
improvements to approximately 100 Milwaukee businesses.
  The list continues: The Walkers Point Development Corp., was recently 
awarded a grant to aid in housing acquisition, rehabilitation, and 
disposition to first-time homebuyers. The Milwaukee Christian Center 
was the recipient of a $500,000 community development block grant. 
These funds will be used to operate an owner-occupied rehabilitation 
program for low-income homeowners. Last year, the program was able to 
improve almost 50 units with CDBG funds. Journey House, a youth center 
in Milwaukee, was provided $85,000 for its programming for inner-city 
youth.
  So, you can see that the community development block grant program is 
indeed a worthy, commendable program that assists our communities in 
providing much-needed neighborhood services and clearly betters the 
lives of many residents. That is why it is so outrageous to me that 
CDBG funds could be distorted to lure jobs from State to State. The 
program was meant to create jobs, not to steal them.
  In fact, I have already been contracted by several constituents who 
will personally suffer due to this move. They are angry that Wisconsin 
taxpayer funds are being used to take jobs away from Wisconsin. I agree 
with my constituents that this is clearly not an appropriate use of 
this commendable program. The amendment we are offering today is a 
clear, honest attempt to right this wrong and to disallow future use of 
CDBG funds to lure companies.
  What should we tell those loyal employees who will clearly suffer as 
a result of Federal funds being spent in this manner? What about their 
families who will suffer?
  Madam Chairman, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this amendment and let our constituents know that we recognize 
the worthiness of the community development block grant program and are 
committed to ensuring that Americans are benefited by the program, not 
harmed by it.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Madam Chairman, I rise to commend my colleague from 
Maryland [Mr. Mfume] for his efforts on this bill, particularly 
regarding the issue of payments made by local housing agencies in lieu 
of taxes. During subcommittee consideration of H.R. 3838, Mr. Mfume 
offered a provision to authorize a study of the adequacy of these 
payments, also known as PILOTs. This amendment was accepted with the 
support of Mrs. Roukema, the subcommittee's ranking minority member.
  Hundreds of public housing authorities make payments in lieu of taxes 
rather than paying full property taxes to local governments. Under 
section 6 of the Housing Act of 1937, these payments are calculated by 
taking 10 percent of the total annual shelter rents minus the cost of 
utilities and maintenance. Normally, these payments are divided between 
local governments and schools.
  Unfortunately, for many communities, the PILOT allotments are no 
longer sufficient to meet the costs of schools and public services such 
as police and fire protection. Nationwide, recent PILOT payments have 
averaged about $57 annually per unit of public housing. In my district, 
several communities with large concentrations of public housing have 
received even less from local housing authorities. McKeesport, a city 
with more than 1,200 units of public housing, received a total PILOT of 
$480.53 in 1992. This was less than $0.40 per unit.
  Madam Chairman, the inadequacy of the PILOT formula greatly harms 
communities like McKeesport. As long as insufficient payments continue, 
schools must be closed, policemen will be laid off, and fire alarms 
will be left unanswered. Equally important, underfunding the PILOT 
makes it difficult for citizens to accept and support public housing in 
their communities. This must be remedied.
  I have introduced legislation, the Community and Education Investment 
Act, to require public housing agencies to make minimum payments to 
municipalities and school districts. While this measure will not 
completely reimburse communities for the services provided, it is a 
start. Similar legislation has also been introduced by Mr. Shays and 
Mr. Mfume.
  I am confident that the study authorized by H.R. 3838 will arrive at 
the same conclusion that Mr. Mfume, Mr. Shays, and I have all reached. 
Quite simply, the PILOT formula is outdated and needs to be reformed to 
more properly compensate local communities for the costs of public 
housing. I look forward to the results of the study, and I hope 
Congress can use this work to embark on an ambitious reform of the 
PILOT program next year.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3838, the 
Housing and Community Development Act of 1994. In my view, this 
legislation provides critically needed reforms for many of our Nation's 
core housing programs by making them more flexible and easier for 
homeowners to use.
  I am particularly pleased with changes H.R. 3838 makes to the Federal 
Housing Administration's single-family mortgage insurance program. 
Today mortgage interest rates are heading up while housing starts are 
going down, meaning that many Americans are finding it harder than ever 
to realize the dream of buying their own homes. H.R. 3838 addresses 
this situation by raising the maximum FHA loan limit in high-cost areas 
from $151,750 to $172,675. This change is especially helpful to 
potential buyers in California cities, including the San Francisco Bay 
area, where home prices are far higher than elsewhere around the 
country. Even though the U.S. median existing-home price was $106,800 
last year, in 1993 the median price for an existing home in San 
Francisco was $250,200.
  In addition, H.R. 3838 increases the FHA base amount--the loan limit 
in areas not designed as high-cost--from $67,500 to more than $100,000. 
Raising the FHA base loan amount to $100,000 will allow 1.5 million 
more families to buy homes.
  I applaud both of these steps to boost single-family home ownership 
and revitalize the FHA. Many people work hard and play by the rules 
find themselves locked out of the market for modest-sized homes. The 
FHA is the key to unlocking this market for these potential buyers. It 
has ensured single-family homes for over 21 million borrowers since its 
creation in 1934 and will be able to do an even better job to make the 
American dream of home ownership come true if we pass H.R. 3838.
  Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Housing and 
Community Development Act of 1994.
  Ms. SCHENK. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3838, the 
Housing and Community Development Reauthorization.
  This bill, which increases FHA-insured loan limits, is clearly a win-
win proposition. H.R. 3838 would increase the FHA base loan amount. In 
lower-cost housing markets, the loan limit would be increased from 
$67,500 to over $100,000. And in higher-cost markets, the loan limit 
would increase from $151,725 to $172,675. This bill is a winner for the 
1.5 million middle-income families whose mortgage needs will be met by 
FHA-insured loans. In San Diego County, a high-cost housing area, it is 
estimated that under this legislation an additional 4,100 homebuyers 
would be served by FHA financing.
  This bill is also a winner for the financial integrity of the FHA, 
whose insurance fund reserves will be strengthened by the higher loan 
limits. According to a GAO study, larger loans perform better. Higher 
FHA loan limits will mean a lower default rate and expanded loan 
availability, enabling HUD to better serve low- and middle-income 
families.
  For too long, hard-working, middle-income families who wish to 
purchase homes have fallen between the cracks. Private mortgage 
insurance is available to higher-income families, but is too often 
unavailable to middle-income families. Yet the current FHA loan limits 
are too low to meet the needs of middle-income families. They are 
caught in a gap between private financing and FHA financing, and they 
are effectively shut out of housing opportunities.
  As the cost of the average home has steadily risen over the years, 
FHA loan limits have not been increased to keep pace. H.R. 3838 would 
provide a long-overdue, upward adjustment to FHA loan limits to reflect 
current home prices. In my home State of California, the median home 
price for 1993 was reported at $188,870. Yet the FHA high-cost area 
loan limit is $151,725. H.R. 3838 will raise this limit to $172,675, 
bringing it within the range of the median home cost, and putting the 
program at the service of the average home buyer. H.R. 3838 will 
provide a boost in FHA program accessibility at a time when financing 
costs are increasing and housing starts are down.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 3838. Let us put 
homeownership within the reach of every hard-working American family.
  Mr. RUSH. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
3838, and I commend Chairman Gonzalez for putting together this far-
reaching housing bill. I would like to highlight one of the provisions 
in the Chairman's managers amendment which incorporates legislation 
which I recently introduced; the Public Housing Funding Flexibility Act 
of 1994, or H.R. 4735. I authored this proposal in conjunction with 
Chairman Gonzalez, HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros and Chicago Housing 
Authority Chairman Vince Lane. Mr. Speaker, as the landlord of our 
Nation's public housing residents, the Federal Government has been an 
appalling failure. Despite the possible good intentions of some, the 
Federal Government in the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's willingly 
participated in the economic and racial segregation of our Nation's 
poor population. We sometimes forget that the infamous Robert Taylor 
Homes, which is in my district and which has become a national example 
of what is dead wrong with public housing, is stepchild of this very 
Congress.
  The time has come to right these historic wrongs.
  The proposal will help to rectify the seemingly unsolvable dilemmas 
which public housing residents face every day by allowing public 
housing authorities to use half of their annual modernization grants 
more innovatively. They will be allowed to forge comprehensive plans to 
use these funds not just for new construction, but to leverage 
additional funds from private and other sources for both renovation and 
replacement housing. Just as importantly, it will ensure that land 
which is used for replacement housing is permanently protected for that 
purpose. Chairman Lane already has devised a mixed-income, public-
private venture called Orchard Park Place Townhomes in Chicago on which 
I helped him break ground this past Monday. This provision will give 
him and other public housing directors the capacity to put together 
many more developments like Orchard Park Place which will change the 
very face of America's public housing.
  Our Nation's public housing residents deserve no less.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I want to take the 
opportunity to commend the members of the Committee on Banking, Finance 
and Urban Affairs, and especially the members of the Subcommittee on 
Housing and Community Development, for the provisions in this bill for 
public housing rent reform. There are many reforms in the legislation 
which are long overdue; but the areas of public housing and section 8 
housing are of particular interest to me.
  The Georgia housing authorities have been very active in working to 
obtain reforms on the State and Federal levels. I am pleased that 
several of the proposals are similar to those proposed and supported by 
our State.
  The provisions of H.R. 3838 which I most strongly endorse are those 
which encourage individuals to become self-sufficient and productive 
citizens. Helping individuals to get off welfare, out of public 
housing, and away from crime requires that we provide incentives in 
every possible area which, taken together, will enable them to become 
responsible members of society. But there is no single answer. We must 
work in every instance to create an environment which rewards 
responsibility, rather than dependency, and this is clearly the goal of 
the public housing rent reform provisions of H.R. 3838.
  Current HUD policies in this area actually provide disincentives for 
residents of public housing to obtain gainful employment. Since 30 
percent of any new income must go toward rent, obviously, many 
individuals are discouraged from seeking employment or even a better 
job, with so much of their income deducted.
  H.R. 3838 addresses this in several ways:
  It provides for currently employed residents, that 20 percent of 
their earned income will not be counted for rent calculation purposes. 
As an incentive to keep both parents in the household and avoid a 
marriage penalty for working, for two-parent working families, 30 
percent of earned income many be excluded.
  The bill freezes the rent for unemployed residents who have been 
unemployed for 1 or more years and get a job. The freeze begins with 
employment and ends at the second annual redetermination of rents.
  The family's cost of private health insurance is not counted toward 
rent if the family is not covered by a Federal or State health care 
plan.
  The earned income of young adults between the ages of 18 to 21 
residing with their families would also be excluded from rent 
calculation. Since individuals of these ages are just starting work, 
which is generally on the low-end of the wage scale, and frequently 
even minimum wage, if these meager funds are calculated against the 
rent, it is hardly worth the work.
  For those young adults between the ages of 18 and 21, the committee 
added at my request, a provision that for the income to be excluded, 
these individuals must have a high school diploma or equivalent or be 
working toward either. This is one more facet of the larger universe of 
providing the tools to equip government-dependent individuals to be 
able to obtain employment that will be self-sustaining, and I greatly 
appreciate the committee accepting this provision.
  In short, Madam Chairman, I am encouraged by many of the steps that 
have been taken in the housing area, and I hope my colleagues will 
continue to address all of the areas welfare, crime, education, and 
housing to provide more incentives for government-dependent individuals 
to become productive, responsible and self-sustaining members of our 
communities.
  Mr. MINETA. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Kim].
  Madam Chairman, we have a lot of priorities in this country today--
and a number of urgent issues with which this Congress must deal.
  So, I am somewhat surprised that Mr. Kim is concerning himself today 
with the fear that--somewhere in this country--a soup kitchen might 
provide some food to a hungry person without first grilling them about 
their citizenship status.
  I realize, and strongly agree, that enforcement of our immigration 
laws is a priority, but somehow I don't think that a bowl of soup or a 
hot meal being provided to a person in need places the Union in 
imminent danger.
  But, Madam Chairman, there is another issue that greatly concerns me 
in this debate. It is one which I fear many of my colleagues simply may 
not understand, or unfortunately, are all too willing to ignore.
  Not too long ago, in Mountain View, CA, an INS agent appeared at a 
meeting with the Mexican-American community in the area.
  One gentleman rose at that meeting to say that, despite the fact that 
he legally resides in this country, he had recently been dragged out of 
a drugstore in handcuffs--simply because he acknowledged to an INS 
agent that he originally came to this country from Mexico. It took 
about 30 minutes for him to convince the INS agent to look in his 
wallet to find his green card.
  The response of the INS agent at the community meeting was that he 
was sure the gentleman's story was accurate--since it is INS policy to 
immediately handcuff anyone who says they originally came to this 
country from Mexico. In other words, handcuff them first and ask 
questions later.
  Most of my colleagues, I am sure, would be horrified to have that 
happen to one of their constituents. Incidents like this are 
humiliating and genuinely frightening.
  But for all too many Hispanic-Americans and Asian-Pacific-Americans, 
this is simply a part of routine life in America. I suspect that the 
situation is somewhat different for immigrants from England, or Canada, 
or any of the Nations of Europe.
  But in Mountain View, CA, Mexican-American residents--legal 
residents--are afraid to walk down the street these days.
  If you're a native born citizen, what do you do when an INS agent 
demands your green card? You don't have one because you're a citizen--
you simply have to hope that the INS agent believes you.
  If he has any doubts, you could easily find yourself hustled off to 
jail.
  If you are a legal immigrant, the simple mistake of forgetting your 
wallet at home could lead to a trip to jail and hours of interrogation.
  That is bad enough in and of itself, Madam Chairman, but adding 
insult to injury is the fact that being treated like this by the INS is 
largely a function of race.
  If you are caucasian, you don't really have to worry about anything 
like this happening to you or your children. But if you are Hispanic- 
or Asian-Pacific-American, you have to worry about it a lot.
  Now on top of this situation, which is already a horrible problem, 
the Kim amendment would subject people to the same kinds of questions 
about their immigration status if they are in need of emergency food 
assistance.
  The social services agencies the Kim amendment would transform into 
INS agent will be forced to inquire of every person who walks through 
their doors exactly what their immigration status is.
  And once again, we know that it will be Hispanic- and Asian-Pacific-
Americans who are subjected to extra scrutiny. And if, by some chance, 
they don't happen to have the documentation the agency thinks they 
should have, then they'll have to live in fear of a knock on the door 
from the INS. In all likelihood, they won't ask for help at all--no 
matter how much they need it.
  Madam Chairman, the situation that would be created by the Kim 
amendment is simply un-American.
  As I said before, I agree that we need to ensure that our immigration 
laws are enforced quickly and effectively. However, I also firmly 
believe that there must be some way to enforce those laws without 
forcing entire communities to live in fear.
  Unfortunately, I am extremely concerned that so few of my colleagues 
seem inclined to give equal consideration to both principles.
  This places Members like myself in the untenable position of having 
to choose which of these princples we consider to be more important. I, 
for one, am heartily tired of being forced into making that false 
choice.
  But if I am forced to make a choice between, on the one hand, 
ensuring that an undocumented immigrant is prohibited from getting a 
hot meal from a soup kitchen or, on the other hand, ensuring that legal 
residents and citizens of Hispanic- or Asian-Pacific origin are free 
from harassment if they are in need of emergency food and housing 
assistance, then my choice and my conscience are clear.
  Make no mistake--that is the choice presented to us by Mr. Kim's 
amendment. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting it.
  Vote ``no'' on the Kim amendment.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, while I rise in support of the bill, H.R. 
3838, I would like to take a moment to share with my colleagues my 
frustrations with the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  I am sure we all remember the problem of mixed populations in our 
Nation's public housing facilities. In many cities, younger residents 
with substance abuse or mental health problems have made drugs, guns, 
and fear a part of daily life for seniors living in these facilities.
  As you may remember, the Housing and Community Development Act of 
1992, which is now law, addressed the mixed populations issue. Several 
provisions I authored, included in this legislation aim to end 
conflicts between seniors and their younger neighbors by allowing them 
to live separately in public housing facilities. Public housing 
authorities were given flexibility to cope with the problems of mixing 
populations. After months and months of delay, HUD finally issued 
regulations which will hopefully resolve the mixed populations issue. 
However, another closely related matter has not been appropriately 
dealt with.
  The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 created the 
position of service coordinator, whose purpose is to provide the health 
and social services residents so desperately need. The law authorized 
$30 million for this position. That amount was then appropriated.
  After the Housing Authority of the city of Milwaukee contacted me 
back in April about this funding, I called HUD to find out what was 
going on. At that time, I found out that HUD was scheduled to publish a 
notification of funding availability [NOFA] on April 29. As we all 
know, a NOFA would let the public housing authorities know that they 
can apply for available funding.
  After April 29 had come and gone with no NOFA, I called HUD again. On 
May 4, I was told by HUD that the NOFA had to go through OMB and should 
be out by the end of May.
  A few weeks later, I was told by HUD that there would no longer be a 
NOFA. Instead, HUD had decided to hold a geographical lottery which 
would take place in November. Under the lottery system, public housing 
authorities would be divided into geographical regions which would then 
each receive an amount of money based on the number of eligible housing 
authorities in that region. In order to be considered eligible, a 
housing authority had to have at least 500 elderly and disabled units.
  In June, I again contacted HUD about this matter. At this point, I 
wanted clarification and the rationale for what was going on. At that 
time, I was told that HUD had determined that there was not enough 
money to fund service coordinators, and it would be too time-consuming 
for housing authorities to apply for money they probably wouldn't get. 
As a result, HUD had decided to give the service coordinator money only 
to those housing authorities that got HOPE for Elderly Independent, a 
tenant-based program which uses section 8 in the neighborhood.
  While HUD's actions have been extremely frustrating to those of us 
trying to help our housing authorities out, I would like to take a 
moment to applaud the committee's efforts to address this situation. 
Under H.R. 3838, the service coordinator position will be a part of the 
operating subsidy budget; it will not be a separate line-item. Instead, 
the position of service coordinator will be a regular cost of business, 
as it should be.
  Madam Chairman, our housing authorities desperately need this money 
to implement the provisions of the Housing and Community Development 
Act of 1992. They also need to plan ahead, something they cannot do it 
HUD keeps changing the rules of the game. Congress recognized the 
importance of the service coordinator position when it passed the 1992 
Housing Act, and it is about time that HUD stop playing games and 
realize this importance as well.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  If there are no other amendments, the question is on the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Sabo) having assumed the chair, Mr. Moran, Chairman pro tempore of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3838) to 
amend and extend certain laws relating to housing and community 
development, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 482, 
he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  It is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 345, 
nays 36, not voting 53, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 349]

                               AYES--345

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Michel
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--36

     Archer
     Armey
     Bentley
     Boehner
     Bunning
     Cox
     Crane
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Gekas
     Goss
     Hancock
     Hefley
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Miller (FL)
     Moorhead
     Oxley
     Paxon
     Penny
     Petri
     Quillen
     Roberts
     Roth
     Royce
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Solomon
     Stearns
     Stump
     Walker

                             NOT VOTING--53

     Applegate
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barton
     Brown (CA)
     Bryant
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Cramer
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dunn
     Ford (MI)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Hansen
     Huffington
     Inhofe
     Kopetski
     Kyl
     Lloyd
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCurdy
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Oberstar
     Owens
     Parker
     Pombo
     Rangel
     Ridge
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Shaw
     Slattery
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Stark
     Sundquist
     Synar
     Thomas (WY)
     Tucker
     Washington
     Wheat
     Wyden

                              {time}  1408

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. McNulty for, with Mr. DeLay against.

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________