[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H4559-H4643]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        U.S. HOUSING ACT OF 1996

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 426 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 426

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2406) to repeal the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937, deregulate the public housing program and the 
     program for rental housing assistance for low-income 
     families, and increase community control over such programs, 
     and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Banking and Financial Services. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Banking and Financial 
     Services now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute shall be considered by title 
     rather than by section. The first two sections and each title 
     shall be considered as read. Points of order against the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure 
     to comply with clause 5(a) of rule XXI are waived. Before 
     consideration of any other amendment it shall be in order to 
     consider the amendment printed in the Congressional Record of 
     May 7, 1996, pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXIII, if offered 
     by Representative Lazio of New York or his designee. That 
     amendment shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     ten minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against that amendment are waived. If that amendment is 
     adopted, the bill, as amended, shall be considered as the 
     original bill for the purpose of further amendment. During 
     further consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman 
     of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 
     of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone 
     until a time during further consideration in the Committee of 
     the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment. The 
     Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less 
     than five minutes the time for voting by electronic device on 
     any postponed question that immediately follows another vote 
     by electronic device without intervening business, provided 
     that the time for voting by electronic device on the first in 
     any series of questions shall be not less than fifteen 
     minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     made in order as original text. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto 
     to final passage without intervening motion except one motion 
     to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. After passage of H.R. 2406, it shall be in order to 
     take from the Speaker's table the bill S. 1260 and to 
     consider the Senate bill in the House. It shall be in order 
     to move to strike all after the enacting clause of the Senate 
     bill and to insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 
     2406 as passed by the House. All points of order against that 
     motion are waived. If the motion is adopted and the Senate 
     bill, as amended, is passed, then it shall be in order to 
     move that the House insist on its amendments to S. 1260 and 
     request a conference with the Senate thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunning of Kentucky). The gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier] is recognized for 1 hour.

[[Page H4560]]

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Woodland Hills, CA [Mr. 
Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, now I will proceed with giving the same 
explanation the reading clerk just gave.
  Mr. Speaker, in the tradition of past housing rules, this rule 
provides an open rule for the consideration of H.R. 2406, the U.S. 
Housing Act of 1996. It provides for 1 hour of general debate equally 
divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
  The rule makes in order the Banking Committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and 
provides that the substitute be considered as read.
  All points of order against the substitute for failure to comply with 
clause 5(a) of rule 21 are waived. This waiver is necessary because 
several sections of the substitute relate to the disposition of 
appropriations due to changes in existing housing law.
  The rule provides that the substitute shall be considered by title 
and the first two sections and each title shall be considered as read. 
If further makes in order, before consideration of any other amendment, 
an amendment printed in the Congressional Record of May 7, 1996, if 
offered by Representative Lazio of New York or his designee.
  That amendment shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 10 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment or to a demand for a 
division of the question, and all points of order are waived.

                              {time}  1445

  If the amendment is adopted, the bill as amended shall be considered 
as an original bill for this purpose of further amendment. Members who 
have preprinted their amendments in the Record prior to their 
consideration will be given priority in recognition to offer their 
amendments if otherwise consistent with House rules.
  The rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce votes to 
5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote.
  The rule also provides for one motion to recommit, with or without 
instruction. Finally, the rule provides that after passage of the House 
bill, it will be in order to take up the Senate bill to move to insert 
the House-passed provisions in the Senate bill, and to move to request 
a conference with the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, despite all of the parliamentary mumbo-jumbo that I have 
just gone through, this is a bona fide open rule. Over the years, I had 
the honor of referring to the former chairman of the Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services and the Subcommittee on Housing and 
Community Opportunity, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], as Mr. 
Open Rule, because of his commitment to bring to the floor major 
housing bills under an open rule. It is a distinction that I look 
forward to bestowing upon the current chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Housing and Community Opportunity, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Lazio].
  While an open rule on a bill of this nature will be time-consuming 
and contentious, 75 amendments were offered in the Committee on Banking 
and Financial Services alone, it is necessary. Housing policy must be 
seen in the context of broader welfare policy.
  Members have strong feelings about the impact of Federal housing 
programs on low-income families and how these programs should be 
reformed. An open rule will allow all issues to be debated and will 
strengthen public confidence in whatever program changes we 
collectively decide to move ahead with.
  Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, the changes called for in H.R. 2406 are 
long overdue. Our public housing programs are a failure, and those 
failures have been known to us for nearly two decades. Yet, until now, 
Congress has failed to offer effective solutions to addressing the 
housing and economic needs of poverty-level families. Instead, we have 
continued to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on costly and 
inefficient public housing programs that encourage waste, fraud, and 
abuse while destroying urban communities and relegating tenants to 
second-class status in Third World living conditions.
  H.R. 2406 will improve housing conditions and economic opportunity 
for tenants by substantially deregulating public housing and giving 
authorities the flexibility they need to operate efficiently and 
effectively.
  While 2406 does not fundamentally alter the Federal Government's 
intrusion into the housing market, nor does it reduce the size of HUD's 
bureaucracy, it will go a long way toward reforming our failed public 
housing programs. For that, I applaud Chairman Lazio for his successful 
efforts in bringing this bill forward. I look forward to working with 
him to bring about similar reforms to the remainder of HUD's 
bureaucracy so we can enhance local control, reduce administrative 
overhead and cost burdens, maximize the direct flow of housing 
assistance, and promote our ultimate objective, which is the 
achievement of economic self-sufficiency for low-income families.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2406 is a good bill that deserves our support. More 
importantly, this rule provides for an open amendment process that will 
allow all the policy issues to be debated.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we support this open rule for the consideration of H.R. 
2406, the U.S. Housing Act of 1996, and we commend our colleagues for 
bringing this open rule to the floor. Certainly, the rule for taking up 
legislation to repeal the housing laws of this Nation, which have been 
in effect since 1937, should be open and unrestricted. It should 
permit, as this rule does, every Member to have an opportunity to offer 
amendments that are germane. We are nonetheless very disturbed, as we 
know the majority of the Committee on Rules are, too, about the manner 
in which the manager's amendment made in order under the rule was 
handled.
  The manager's amendment, which changes many portions of the bill, was 
never presented, Mr. Speaker, to the Committee on Rules. That failure 
to follow our regular procedure raises serious concerns about this 
disgregard for the deliberative nature of the legislative process, as 
well as the effect it could have on millions of Americans who live in 
public or assisted housing.
  But because the Republican leadership insisted on moving the housing 
bill today, the Committee on Rules was faced with a situation that all 
of us, I believe, found untenable, having to approve a rule for a major 
piece of legislation that neither the majority nor the minority on any 
of the committees had seen.
  We trust that we shall not be placed in this situation again, either 
by the committee appearing before the Committee on Rules or by the 
leadership. In this case in particular, the legislation is not only 
momentous in nature, but it is also very complex. The public and all 
Members interested in our Nation's housing policy should have had the 
opportunity to see the exact wording of the manager's amendment and to 
comment on it to Members of the Congress. And for Members wishing to 
offer amendments, the availability of language that they are seeking to 
amend is essential in preparing responsible amendments. That language 
should have been available for a reasonable length of time.
  Mr. Speaker, the issues this legislation is addressing are not minor 
ones. We are dealing with a bill that makes several substantial and 
significant changes in U.S. housing policy, all of which we believe 
could hurt people currently living in public and assisted housing. This 
legislation, by repealing the Housing Act of 1937, will result in a 
total rewriting of U.S. housing policy. We are dealing with legislation 
that, by eliminating the caps on rent paid by seniors and working 
families and eliminating targeted housing assistance,

[[Page H4561]]

could have a very negative effect on senior citizens and on families 
with children who live in public housing. This is legislation that 
would block grant Federal funding for public housing and low-income 
rental assistance. We question whether these block grants will, as its 
proponents believe, save money. Rather, we fear they may end up hurting 
the very people they are proposing to help.

  Mr. Speaker, the bill would also repeal the Brooke amendment, which 
caps rent for tenants in public and assisted housing at 30 percent of 
income. The repeal of the Brooke amendment would force many tenants in 
public housing to make the impossibly difficult decision between 
shelter and food and medicine. We fear it could lead to greater 
homelessness in this country.
  By eliminating the protection of the Brooke amendment, the bill would 
permit housing authorities to set rents based on the real estate 
market, with little regard to how much money people can afford to pay. 
It is inconceivable that we are denying people an increase in the 
minimum wage at the same time we are enacting a demonstration project, 
included in the manager's amendment, to grant the 300 largest housing 
authorities in the country permission to raise the rents of the working 
poor.
  For that reason, Mr. Speaker, we will move to defeat the previous 
question, so we may offer an amendment dealing with an increase in the 
minimum wage.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about people who make a great amount 
of money. We are talking about families who live in public and assisted 
housing, whose income averages only $6,400 a year. Forty-one percent of 
these people are seniors or are disabled. The remaining 59 percent are 
families with children. They are among the most vulnerable people in 
our society. At a time when one quarter of American children live in 
poverty, this Congress should be doing everything possible to help take 
care of them.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill, we fear, would only hurt them. Mr. Speaker, 
although we are not opposed to this open rule, we commend our friends 
on the other side of the aisle for offering this as an open rule. We 
are very much opposed to much of the substance of the bill, and we urge 
our colleagues to give it very careful consideration when it later 
comes before us.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Utah [Ms. Greene], a very able Member and a colleague 
on the Committee on Rules.
  Ms. GREENE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and 
the underlying bill, the U.S. Housing Act of 1996. This rule will 
provide for the open consideration of an extremely important matter, 
our Federal low-income housing policy.
  This is truly historic legislation. I want to commend Chairman Lazio 
for his tireless efforts on behalf of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, for decades we have consigned those residing in Federal 
low-income housing to conditions worse than those found in our Federal 
prisons. Notorious housing projects across the country have imprisoned 
families in deplorable and often hopeless conditions.
  This legislation will bring real reform to our Federal low-income 
housing policy. It will pull back the heavy hand of Washington and 
empower communities to improve their neighborhoods.
  In addition, as part of the manager's amendment that will be made in 
order under the rule, Chairman Lazio has generously included an 
amendment I intended to offer elsewhere. This amendment will correct a 
flaw in the 1990 Housing and Community Development Act that 
discriminates against cities that participate in the Community 
Development Block Grant Program.
  Under the 1990 act, metropolitan cities and urban counties that 
qualify for 2 consecutive years are deemed to permanently retain their 
program status. However, the method in which these grants are awarded, 
on a 3-year basis for counties but only a 1-year basis for cities, 
results in an unfair disadvantage for cities. Currently, a county needs 
to qualify only once, but a city must do so for 2 consecutive years.
  Because of this bias against cities, a city in my district, the city 
of West Jordan, has been denied their status as a metropolitan city 
since 1993. Under the manager's amendment, metropolitan cities would 
now receive the same treatment as urban counties. This is a change that 
is long overdue.
  I would like to thank Congressman Lazio for his generosity in 
including this correction within the manager's amendment made in order 
under this rule.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the bill so that we can 
take an important step to improve our Federal low-income housing 
policy.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm urging my colleagues to defeat the previous question 
and allow us a clean vote on raising the minimum wage.
  Mr. Speaker, the longer this minimum wage debate goes on, the more 
I'm reminded of a story I once heard about a hot dog company.
  The company was having trouble selling its hot dogs, so they called a 
big meeting with all the department heads to find out what was wrong.
  The marketing director says, ``it's not the marketing. We've won all 
kinds of awards.''
  The production supervisor says, ``it's not the production line. We're 
running at full capacity.''
  The shipping supervisor says, ``it's not the shipping. All of our 
trucks are running on time.''
  The CEO says, ``I don't understand. If everything is running well, 
what's the problem?''
  From the back of the room a janitor says, ``The problem is, kids 
don't like your hot dogs.''
  Mr. Speaker, it's the same thing with the Republican agenda. Every 
week we get a new theory about the Republican problems.
  One week it's a strategy problem. The next week it's a message 
problem. This week, the Speaker says it's a media problem. When are 
Republicans going to learn--it's not just the strategy that keeps 
failing. It's the ideas.
  The American people don't want to cut Medicare to pay for tax breaks 
for the wealthy.
  They don't want to cut education to pay for tax breaks for big oil 
companies--as the majority leader proposed this weekend.
  They don't want to allow CEO's to raid corporate pension funds.
  But that's what you've tried to do the past 18 months. The Republican 
agenda is out of touch with the needs of America's families.
  Eighty-five percent of the American people say: ``raise the minimum 
wage.''
  Yet, the majority leader says he'll oppose a minimum wage increase 
with every fiber of his being. The majority whip says that minimum wage 
families ``don't really exist.''
  And the Republican conference chairman went so far to say that he 
would commit suicide before voting to raise the minimum wage.
  Never mind that that the minimum wage is at a 40-year low. Never mind 
that the majority of the people working for the minimum wage are 
mothers trying to raise their kids and stay off welfare.
  For 18 months, Republican leaders have blocked us at every single 
turn.
  And now, instead of raising the minimum wage, here we are today 
considering a bill that will raise rents on people who earn the minimum 
wage.
  Forty-one percent of the people who lived in assisted housing are 
senior or disabled.
  The rest are working families with children.
  Many of them make the minimum wage or less.
  In fact, the average income of these working families is $6,400 a 
year--which is less than half the poverty level. And yet, this bill 
will give landlords a blank check to raise rents through the roof.
  This bill operates under the theory that there aren't enough homeless 
people in America--so we have to create more of them.
  Mr. Speaker, if you're wondering why over 60 percent of the American 
people disapprove of the Republican agenda. This is the reason.
  Fortunately, some of our Republican colleagues are beginning to see 
the light.

[[Page H4562]]

  Twenty-one brave Republicans have co-sponsored a bill to raise the 
minimum wage.
  Unfortunately, 12 of them have voted ``no'' every single time we've 
tried to bring the issue to the floor.
  So we are giving you another chance here today.
  Please help us Chris Shays, Spencer Bachus, Frank Cremeans, Bob 
Franks, Steve Horn, Amo Houghton, Nancy Johnson, Steve LaTourette, Rick 
Lazio, Bill Martini, Jack Metcalf, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
  Help us raise the minimum wage for 12 million working Americans.
  All of you had the courage to cosponsor a bill to raise the minimum 
wage.
  Now we're asking you to put your vote where your heart is, help us 
defeat the previous question, raise the minimum wage, and give over 12 
million Americans the dignity and respect they deserve.
  They have chosen, they have chosen work over welfare. They ought to 
be rewarded. We ought to make work pay. Help us defeat the previous 
question.

                              {time}  1500


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the eloquence of my friend from Michigan has 
led me to propound a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunning of Kentucky). The gentleman will 
state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, under House rule IX, which requires that a 
Member must confine himself to the question under debate, is it 
relevant to the debate on either this rule or the bill it makes in 
order to engage in a discussion of the merits of the minimum wage?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As explained on page 529 of the manual and 
reiterated by the Chair last week, debate on a special order for 
consideration of a bill may range to the merits of the bill to be made 
in order but should not range to the merits of a measure not to be 
considered under that order.
  Mr. DREIER. A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Could the 
Chair enlighten us as to the subject matter of the question that is 
under debate at this point?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. House Resolution 426, the rule providing for 
consideration of the bill H.R. 2406, to repeal the U.S. Housing Act of 
1937, deregulate the public housing program and the program for rental 
housing assistance for low-income families, increase community control 
over such programs and for other purposes.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the Speaker very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my dear friend and colleague, the 
gentlewoman from Columbus, OH [Ms. Pryce].
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule 
and H.R. 2406, the U.S. Housing Act, and to remind my friends this is a 
rule on a historic housing bill, nothing else. This important 
legislation sets the Nation's public housing system on a course that 
will save families and neighborhoods from the grasp of the welfare 
state.
  H.R. 2406 starts by repealing the outdated Housing Act of 1937 and 
begins sending power back to local communities and away from 
Washington, where residents, nonprofit organizations, and community 
leaders will determine which housing policies work best for them and 
their neighborhoods.
  Mr. Speaker, tenants in America's public housing system deserve a 
break. They deserve a break from overcrowding, crime, and insecurity. 
This legislation will allow tenants with low and moderate incomes to 
share neighborhoods, and gives the poorest of American citizens a 
chance to escape poverty-stricken areas through the use of vouchers.
  Mr. Speaker, I also urge my colleagues to support the manager's 
amendment which strengthens the bill's ability to provide safe and 
affordable housing. The manager's amendment prevents housing 
authorities from overcharging the Nation's poorest tenants as well as 
the elderly and disabled.
  This amendment further ensures that adequate housing be available for 
our Nation's most needy, and taxpayers will benefit from provisions of 
the amendment which establish criteria to replace costly, ineffective 
housing projects with private housing vouchers.
  Additionally, the manager's amendment addresses the problem of 
overcrowding, which threatens to undermine even the most successful 
housing projects by creating unhealthy living conditions that isolate 
the poorest and most dependent citizens. The manager's amendment 
remedies this problem by allowing States, not HUD, to set occupancy 
standards. This provision cures the problems of overcrowding in one 
simple step.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Lazio for his leadership and fine 
work on this historic legislation and urge my colleagues to support the 
rule. America's housing system needs a shot in the arm. Chairman Lazio 
and the fine work of his committee and the U.S. Housing Act provide 
that.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], the ranking member of the policy 
committee.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, the House soon will take up the Housing 
Act of 1996, a bill that in large part aims to force the residents of 
public housing to pay more rent.
  But this is trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip--75 percent of 
the people who live in public housing make less than one-third of the 
median income. Even if the minimum wage were increased by 90 cents an 
hour, it would not be enough to raise the income of a family to the 
poverty level.
  So it is exceedingly ironic that we are going to raise the rent of 
the poorest people in America, while denying them an increase in the 
minimum wage, which the Republicans will not even permit the House to 
vote on.
  Here we are, telling the poor to be self-sufficient, when the House 
will not even guarantee a poverty-level wage.
  It is shameful. I do not know anybody who enjoys being poor. I do not 
know anybody who likes working for a wage that does not pay the rent 
and grocery bill. And I do not know anybody who believes that it makes 
sense to add ever-greater burdens to the elderly, the disabled, and the 
struggling poor and exhort them to do better--all the while saying that 
we won't adjust the minimum wage to make up for the buying power it has 
lost since 1988, the last time it was changed. It is wrong and it is 
unjust, it is shameful to prevent a vote on the minimum wage while the 
House is telling the poor to pay more rent, as it is today.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vineland, NJ [Mr. LoBiondo], a very able new Member of Congress.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this 
rule and H.R. 2406, the United States Housing Act of 1996. As a member 
of the Banking Committee, I have seen the hard work of Chairman Lazio 
over the past several months and I believe that he is bringing a very 
good bill to the floor today.
  H.R. 2406 will repeal the long since outdated Housing Act of 1937. 
This Depression-era legislation has been altered over the years to the 
point that local governments and local housing authorities have very 
little flexibility in meeting the housing needs of their own 
communities. H.R. 2406 will abandon the notion that HUD should 
micromanage every aspect of public housing through one-size-fits-all 
regulations. With this legislation we will return the power to local 
communities.
  This bill rewards good housing authorities with less Federal 
regulation and helps those already good public housing authorities to 
better serve the needs of low-income families at a lower cost to the 
taxpayer. Just as we are rewarding good operations, H.R. 2406 inflicts 
severe punishments on those authorities that have failed the American 
public year after year. This bill provides the tools to end these 
embarrassments that have wasted so many taxpayer dollars without 
helping those of our society who are in need.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Lazio for his work on this 
legislation and for his vision. With these reforms, I believe we will 
see the creation of neighborhoods and communities of which we all can 
be proud.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and in 
favor of H.R. 2406.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].

[[Page H4563]]

  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. It is an 
open rule. However, it does include a manager's amendment which was not 
fully explained. It is in the Record today but nevertheless, it makes 
in order certain nongermane amendments which I think should have 
complied with the rules of the House, and not be waived by the rule 
that is before us.
  Furthermore, I join others in objecting to the procedure of this 
House floor, when important matters for the last months have been 
denied a vote on this House floor by this Committee on Rules and by 
others. It could have easily made in order legislation that would 
provide for the consideration of legislation to raise the minimum wage.
  That is directly related to the proposition that we have before us, 
Mr. Chairman, because the fundamental tenet of this bill is public and 
assisted housing, trying to help those that have to attain sanitary and 
safe housing. In fact, since 1937 our Nation has championed public and 
assisted housing to meet that need. Today we have 1.3 million families 
in public and assisted housing.
  The fact is that unfortunately, 13 million families are eligible for 
such housing today, and that is a direct result of the economic 
disparities that exist in our American economy and in our society. The 
fact is that the minimum wage is one of the major means that we have, 
one of the major tools that we have available to change those 
disparities.
  It is important I think that we have other programs such as housing, 
that we have other programs such as health care programs that rise to 
try and meet and set minimum standards for individuals, but I think we 
need to start with the world of work. We need to make work pay. We need 
to give people the autonomy of having a stake in our society, that that 
job would actually give the type of wages that is necessary to sustain 
them and to meet their basic family needs.
  Too often American workers are forced to take jobs that pay 
substandard wages and have no health benefits, yet my Republican 
colleagues will say you don't need to raise the minimum wage because it 
will hurt American workers. Well, it is not quite clear to me how 
giving 10 million American workers a 90 cents raise over the next 2 
years will hurt them? Especially since the real value of the current 
minimum wage has fallen by one-quarter over the past 15 years.
  At a time when U.S. corporations are making record profits and the 
economy is strong and stable, it is unreasonable that working families 
receive wages far below the poverty level. This is the unhappy and sad 
status of our society as we move into the 21st century. Whatever means 
American workers had to achieve a minimum standard of pay in the past 
has been broken over the last decades.
  This condition--this circumstance must stop and be corrected. Our 
Nation should be moving beyond even a minimum wage to be a livable wage 
for workers and their families. Our workers deserve to be paid a fair 
day's wage for a fair day's work. Employers and corporations must be 
held accountable to provide a fair shake to American working families.
  The annual pay for a full time minimum wage earner is $8,840. This is 
not an exorbitant wage. Imagine a family trying to live on this amount. 
It may not seem possible, but it is done every day in this country. 
There is a serious problem in our society when hard-working families, 
holding down full-time jobs, cannot earn enough to bring their families 
out of the poverty cycle, while company executives earn an average of 
70 times that of their average employee.

  Let's not make America a caste system. We need to raise the minimum 
wage and ensure workers are paid a fair and livable wage. We need to 
let this Republican Congress know that we will fight to protect workers 
and that promoting the special interest of mega-corporations at the 
expense of working Americans is wrong. We need to return to the days 
when a worker made for a family, a wage that provides a decent home and 
a good opportunities for his or her family--the promise of America. We 
need to give dignity and justice back to American working families 
which they earn every day on the job.
  We as a Congress should do all that we can to try and enhance the 
wages of those persons so that they can meet their housing needs, so 
that they can put food on the table, so that they can meet their health 
needs. But unfortunately today this Congress is demonstrating a refusal 
to consider raising the minimum wage even 90 cents or a dollar, which 
in fact would affect nearly 13 million American workers.
  These are not teenagers. Half of them are over 25 years of age, and 
many of them are the very individuals that we are talking about in 
terms of this assisted and public housing. One individual article 
pointed out that almost everyone in this country is that available for 
housing, that needs it, can get public housing.
  As I have said, only about 10 percent of the poor actually, there is 
only that much housing, so 90 percent are out there struggling and 
sometimes they fail. Sometimes they end up homeless. They are out there 
trying to get the health care and take care of their basic needs. But 
the best thing that we could do for them is to provide an opportunity, 
a minimum wage that would help them meet their own needs, to make work 
pay.
  That is really what this should be about. This Congress should be 
busy on that track to try and respond, not to create more transfer 
programs. Even now I see that my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle have a new-found affinity for the earned income tax credit. But 
again, that is a transfer payment. It is a good program. We pushed it, 
I think, as far as it probably can go.
  The fact is we should not be subsidizing the mega corporations and 
others that are refusing to actually pay a minimum wage, a livable 
wage. When we stop and think about what a minimum wage is, it is only 
$8,800 a year. Very few families are going to be able to survive on 
that.
  What is happening here in this particular bill is that we are pulling 
the rug out from under the public in assisted housing programs so that 
we are limiting basically the amount of assistance. In fact, we are 
really repealing the 1949 law. It is not just the repeal of a law that 
is archaic. It is not archaic. I urge the defeat of this particular 
rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from Minnesota who 
raised the issue of waivers on the manager's amendment, the manager's 
amendment was fashioned after hours and hours of negotiations that took 
place between the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community 
Opportunity and Secretary Cisneros, and while there was not an 
agreement on every single issue, it was a compromise that was struck 
with them.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
King].
  Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 2406, and urge my 
colleagues to support both the rule and this truly historic and 
revolutionary legislation.
  I also must commend my good friend and fellow New Yorker, Rick Lazio, 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity of 
the Committee on Banking, for the outstanding work and dedication he 
has shown in addressing the issue of public housing, of introducing 
this critical legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, public housing in this country has been a failed policy 
but H.R. 2406 will, among other things, reform public housing by 
putting power back into the hands of local communities and by making 
public housing authorities accountable to professional standards of 
management. This is an outstanding bill that is revolutionary 
legislation, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong 
opposition to this rule on a number of different fronts. First and 
foremost, I rise in opposition because of the procedures that we are 
operating under in terms of what the rule provides.
  We ought to recognize that during the last evening, as we were before 
the Committee on Rules, early in the evening, for the first time I saw 
the manager's amendment. The Committee on Rules itself indicated to me 
that this was a highly unusual circumstance. We had no ability to 
reflect upon or understand what was contained in the manager's 
amendment.
  The staff of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, which 
is here on the floor this afternoon, went

[[Page H4564]]

through the manager's amendment and found at least three whole new 
programs that were contained within the manager's amendment, which none 
of us were ever even made aware of.
  While some of these programs might very well end up making some sense 
somewhere down the line, the fact of the matter is, to have them 
contained where we have never had a hearing, where we do not understand 
what all the implications of these provisions might be, we have got the 
vouchering out of public housing by housing authorities under certain 
terms and conditions, that none of us are clear upon, we have got 
another amendment that is contained within that provides for a 
wholesale exemption of the Brooke amendment, which guarantees the 30-
percent ceiling on the amount people are going to pay for rent, 
regardless of whether or not we pass the Brooke amendment today on the 
House floor and reinstall it as part of our Nation's commitment to the 
poor. These demonstration programs, which were 30 in number in the U.S. 
Senate, are rising to over 300, which are also mandated in the fine 
print to include New York City, with 108,000 units of public housing.
  This is the kind of legislation where we have some sort of self-
sufficiency, the PIP program I guess. Somehow each individual that 
attains public housing is going to have to file a statement with 
someone, somewhere, to determine what their own personal plans are for 
improving themselves in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge strongly that we defeat this rule and look out 
for the needs of working class Americans.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I respond to my friend by saying one of the three 
programs he mentioned was specifically at the request of the Secretary 
of Housing and Urban Development. It is voluntary vouchering out of 
public housing, which is a priority item.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we are very limited on time. I am just 
responding to the gentleman.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it is very unfair for the 
gentleman to suggest that, when I talked to the Secretary himself and 
he disagrees wholeheartedly, very strongly with that statement.
  Mr. DREIER. It is a specific request.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Do not lie about it on the House floor, 
David.
  Mr. DREIER. I am simply providing what staff has informed us, that 
the Secretary of Housing and Development requested that of the 
Subcommittee on Housing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman 
from Chicago, IL [Mr. Flanagan].
  (Mr. FLANAGAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2406, the 
U.S. Housing Act of 1996. I thank Mr. Lazio, chairman of the Housing 
and Community Opportunity Subcommittee, and the committee for their 
efforts on this excellent bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill to all communities. Passage of 
H.R. 2406 will ensure that local housing authorities, not Washington 
bureaucrats, are responsible for the management of local housing plans. 
Residents of public housing will assume responsibility for the day-to-
day operations of the housing project, thus having an active rather 
than passive role in managing their facilities.
  America's housing system is a total disgrace. Manyu families have 
found themselves trapped in a system that was originally designed as a 
short-term solution to what has become a long-term problem. 
Centralizing a housing program, which has become very complex, is not 
the most constructive way to serve residents of those housing 
complexes. Washington cannot effectively serve communities across the 
country who all have different needs. Local authorities are, for 
obvious reasons, much more specifically concerned with the residents of 
their community. Local organizations who know and understand the need 
of the communities will be much more efficient and effective in making 
the decision that will affect them.
  In 1966 in Chicago, a lawsuit--Gautreaux versus the Chicago Housing 
Authority--was filed. The objective of the suit was to prove that there 
was an intentional pattern of racial discrimination against tenants of 
CHA sites. In 1969, the Federal judge--Judge Richard Austin--ruled in 
favor of the plaintiffs. A new problem emerged. Desegregating public 
housing complexes in the city was going to be much more difficult than 
desegregating the city schools. Since the Gautreaux decision, there 
have been many problems with implementing the court order.
  There is no need nor any benefit to forced, instituted social 
engineering from Washington. Had H.R. 2406 been the law at the time of 
this suit, there most likely would not be the problems that we have 
today. Federal judges, appointed for life, were allowed to write laws 
in the face of congressional inaction. Local communities could have 
come to some kind of accomodation, if they had been given the 
opportunity to do so. At longlast, this legislation would so empower 
localities.
  H.R. 2406, the U.S. Housing Act of 1996, is an excellent bill. I 
commend the committee as a whole, and especially Chairman Lazio for all 
the hard work and commitment to America's communities. I only wish that 
a bill like this had been enacted many years ago. It will certainly 
benefit local neighborhoods.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake].
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I come this afternoon sharing a fond 
relationship with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] the chairman 
of the committee, and thank him and his staff for working with my staff 
in trying to get certain things into the bill. In spite of that, there 
are some serious concerns that make me juxtaposed to wanting to see 
this particular rule pass at this time, because some of the concerns 
that those of us who are not only Members of this body but also 
providers of housing understand as it relates to what is necessary for 
people to put a roof over their head, to keep a roof over their head, 
are not included in this particular piece of legislation.
  The best means of trying to get people to that point, where they can 
be self-sufficient, when they can take care of their own 
responsibility, is to create for them opportunities for income, rather 
than creating a bill that takes away from them the means of resources 
that they already have available in trying to determine whether or not 
they are going to put food on the table or whether or not they are 
going to pay other bills.
  It is extremely difficult for me to understand how one can argue that 
this bill, along with welfare, makes sense, and this bill, along with 
minimum wage, does not make sense. If you are talking about the same 
people in each class and in each category, it becomes almost impossible 
to conceive of putting together a bill that raises the amount of money 
that a person who works every day, yet is beneath the poverty line, is 
only able to provide for shelter for their family by virtue of the fact 
that they have access to the public housing, and then say though you 
will be paying more out of the little bit that you do make, we are not 
going to give consideration to a minimum wage bill that will allow you 
to be able to pay the difference between what we are now charging you.
  It makes no sense to me for us as a body responsible for making sure 
that every citizen in this Nation not only has an opportunity to be 
able to live to the best degree possible, that we do not even have in 
this an affordable housing provision that allows for people to be able 
to work their way out of public housing into an affordable housing 
category, so that they can have the benefit of sharing in the American 
dream of home ownership.
  I would agree with my colleagues, if we could get rid of public 
housing and put everybody into a home, that would make sense. This bill 
does not do that.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very able colleague, 
the gentleman from Bloomfield, MI [Mr. Knollenberg].
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the rule and the underlying bill. 
This bill repeals an outdated, depression-era law and puts the power 
and responsibility

[[Page H4565]]

where it belongs, in the hands of local communities and residents, not 
the Washington bureaucrats.
  I am especially pleased with the provisions, that reform the Brooke 
amendment. I salute Chairman Lazio and the committee. Simply put, our 
current policy under the Brooke amendment punishes work and rewards 
welfare dependency. Here is how:
  Public housing rent is calculated at 30 percent of a resident's 
income. Thus, the more you earn, the more you pay. But if you go to 
work, you pay income and FICA taxes, in addition to higher rent, and 
also begin to lose welfare, foodstamp, and medicaid payments.
  Nine times out of ten, residents who find gainful employment, end up 
with less disposable income than if they had simply stayed on welfare. 
In fact the, highest marginal tax rate in the United States is not paid 
by millionaires or people in boardrooms, it is paid by AFDC-dependent 
public housing residents who accept a full-time minimum wage job. 
Understanding this fact is the key to understand public housing. You 
know why there are people trapped in poverty.
  The only way you can change this is to give, as the bill does, more 
flexibility and decisionmaking ability to local public housing 
authorities, who frankly have the best interests of public housing 
residents at heart, and have a much better track record of protecting 
the resident's concerns than the bureacrats at HUD.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2406 is a giant step forward in the debate of real 
welfare reform.
  We must pass this bill and rule, with Brooke fully intact, to provide 
the reform of Brooke, to provide the much-needed relief for our 
families and local communities.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Georgia [Ms. McKinney].
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, a major part of the American dream is to 
own your own home. Unfortunately, for millions of people in public 
housing, this dream has little chance of becoming reality, because they 
don't earn enough to get out of public housing.
  As a result, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. taxpayer covers the cost of public 
housing because millions of working poor don't make enough money to pay 
rent and put food on the table. A large part of the reason for this is 
our tragically low minimum wage. We could do a great deal to move 
people out of public housing by increasing the minimum wage to a level 
where people can earn enough to move out on their own. Unfortunately, 
the Republican leadership is so opposed to raising the minimum wage 
that they would rather kick the working poor into the streets.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill misses the point. The way we reduce the need 
for public housing is to give people a living wage. And today's minimum 
wage is certainly not a living wage.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very thoughtful 
colleague, the gentleman from Long Beach, CA [Mr. Horn].
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and 
the U.S. Housing Act of 1996. It means real reform and it means hope 
for our neighborhoods. This bill, removing obstacles that have existed 
in the law for many years, will end the cruel hoax of our outdated, 
inefficient, ineffective public housing system. It scraps the system 
that tolerates failure and replaces it with safe, clean, healthy, 
affordable housing for our most vulnerable citizens. It gives low-
income Americans hope and opportunity by removing obstacles to work and 
insisting on professional management standards in local public housing 
authorities.
  By passing this bill, the House will be saying yes to accountability 
and to work incentives, and no to bloated bureaucracies and the decay 
of our neighborhoods.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] for 
including in his manager's amendment a provision that is very important 
to the people of the city and county of Los Angeles. The manager's 
amendment extends the authority of the city and county of Los Angeles 
to spend up to 25 percent of their community development block grant 
funding on public service. This desperately needed provision fits well 
into the Republican effort to return broader decision making authority 
to state and local government.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to forget the past, forget the decrepit, rotten housing we have 
provided for the most vulnerable over the years, and vote for the U.S. 
Housing Act, which means real reform that will mean better living 
conditions for low-income Americans.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, so many Americans are working two jobs, they 
are making sacrifices for their children, and they still cannot get to 
the American dream of homeownership. One affordable and quality option 
for many of these Americans is manufactured housing. We have worked 
very hard and achieved a delicate balance with Republicans and 
Democrats, with consumer groups and taxpayer groups, in a bipartisan 
way, to put together an amendment that will help increase the 
availability and the access to this very important industry and to this 
dream.
  Republicans, such as the gentlemen from California, Mr. Rohrabacher 
and Mr. Calvert, and the gentleman from Florida, Mr. McCollum, have 
supported this, as well as the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gonzalez, and 
the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Vento, We also have strong consumer 
support for this amendment.
  I think that this is the way to go as we downsize HUD, as we get 
input from the industry, as we get input from consumer groups, as we 
try to make available to hard working Americans this great dream. Let 
us try to have as many options as are available to these hard working 
Americans, and manufactured housing and a better understanding of 
manufactured housing certainly is that option.
  I intend to offer in a bipartisan way this bipartisan amendment, and 
hope to get the support of this House.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Appleton, WI [Mr. Roth], my colleague on the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, that is a very good bill and it is a good 
rule. In fact, the gentleman from California in yielding me the time 
had mentioned Appleton, WI. Well, it was Green Bay, WI, and Fort Wayne, 
IN, where they initially started this voucher program as a pilot 
program and it worked out very well.
  This is a good bill because the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] 
and the people working on that committee had looked at this in depth. 
Let me point out that this bill now takes some of the power from 
Washington and puts it in the hands of local communities. But, Mr. 
Speaker, it does more than that. It gives it to private, nonprofit 
organizations; it gives it to the people who actually live in those 
housing units.
  It also gives them the vouchers so that the tenant now has freedom of 
choice. If the tenant does not want to live in this unit, this tenant 
can find another unit so he or she can vote with their feet. It brings 
the free market forces into public housing, which is what is so 
desperately needed.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation also consolidates several programs into 
block grants, and, of course we debated that issue here for years and 
years about the block grant program, but the block grants are good 
especially in this instance because it makes people in public housing 
more self-sufficient and it streamlines the program. That is why the 
voucher program is so important.
  This bill gives people an incentive to move off of welfare in public 
housing by cutting the legal link between their income and the rent 
they have to pay. As has been said here in debate before, there is this 
30 percent formula, but this 30 percent formula under this bill is not 
chiseled into stone so that the people again have more latitude.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that is what we want to do. We want to give 
people who are utilizing public housing some latitude, and give them 
some other avenues besides just concreting them into one particular 
formula. That is why this legislation is so good.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Waters], my fine colleague.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, the radical Republicans are playing a cruel

[[Page H4566]]

hoax on the American people. They refuse to raise the minimum wage by a 
lousy 90 cents and the bill before us would raise rent on the poorest 
and most vulnerable Americans, Americans who are only making minimum 
wage.
  Mr. Speaker, why can we bring a bill to this floor to raise public 
housing rents for the elderly, single mothers, and the working poor 
when the overwhelming majority of Americans, 78 percent, believe this 
Congress should consider a modest 90-cent increase in the minimum wage, 
but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, ``No way.''
  This rule on this bill shows clearly this Congress' contorted 
priorities. We could give 11 million Americans a tiny raise. Six out of 
10 workers earning the minimum wage are women, many of whom are single 
parents. Seventy-two percent of these women are adults 20 years old or 
over.
  So much for Mother's Day. So much for family values, my Republican 
friends. They have just gone too far, Mr. Speaker. We cannot justify 
this attack on poor and working families. Let us oppose the previous 
question and craft a rule that will bring a minimum wage increase to 
this floor. If the Republicans want to raise the rents on seniors 
tomorrow, let them try. But let us give 11 million Americans a raise 
today.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunning). The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair what piece of 
legislation is before us?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. House Resolution 426.
  Mr. DREIER. And what is that, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Would you like the Chair to repeat it again? 
The Chair has read the title before. House Resolution 426.
  Providing for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2406, to repeal the 
United State's Housing Act of 1937, deregulate the public housing 
program, and the program for rental housing assistance for low-income 
families, increase community control over such programs, and for other 
purposes.
  Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And I would say to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] that that lousy 90 cents works 
out to $57,000 for the average small business.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentelman from West Chester, 
OH, [Mr. Boehner].
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the committee and Members on 
both sides of the aisle for the excellent work that they have done. 
Especially congratulations to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] 
on a bill that really is reflective of our broader Republican agenda.
  The gentlewoman from California who spoke before me referred to this 
as another radical part of our agenda. What the gentlewoman refers to 
as ``radical'' most people in America would look at and say, ``Now this 
is common sense,'' because what we are trying to do is to move this 
power out of Washington, back to States and local communities, to make 
decisions for the people who live in their communities that can best 
help the people in their communities.
  One provision that will be in the manager's amendment that I am 
especially pleased with refers to title V of the McKinney Act that 
currently sets up a three-agency review process for processing 
applications by homeless groups for Federal surplus land. The process 
can take years and really does not reflect any local concerns.
  Even if there is a local homeless or low-income housing group that 
would like some of the land and the local community wants to give it to 
them, they cannot under existing law. The Federal Government decides 
here in Washington.
  This provision in the amendment cuts through all of this redtape. It 
says that if the local elected officials consent to the transfer of 
surplus Federal land to a local homeless or low-income housing group, 
that the Federal Government can transfer the property immediately. No 
endless process; no three-agency review. The property goes straight to 
local groups who have local support.
  If the local officials cannot agree, then the process goes on through 
the regular McKinney Act. I think this is a win-win solution. It gives 
local leaders the authority and the incentive to work with local groups 
who are trying to address the housing needs of the poor and the 
homeless.
  Local housing assistance groups will get a more receptive ear at city 
hall and will have more incentive to build local support within their 
communities. This is an important provision, and I would urge my 
colleagues to support the rule, support the manager's amendment and the 
bill.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I really do know what bill 
this is. This is the turn the local housing authority into your local 
rental office and to help and to provide economic opportunity for all 
those vacant apartments. It has nothing to do with housing poor people 
who, in fact, many of us would say I would not live in that place if I 
had to.
  Mr. Speaker, this forces residents to pay more rent. Of those who 
live in public housing 75 percent earn less than one-third of minimum 
wage. What this does, oh, yes, give somebody a voucher. In the 
segregated South I can tell my colleagues there are many of those in 
the public housing that will not be allowed to live in certain 
neighborhoods.
  This is a bill that has the right direction, but it is the wrong way 
to do it. This is a bad rule. The reason is because the bill is a bad 
bill. Yes, we can do some things to reform our local housing 
authorities, but not take away total Government direction on the 
national level to ensure that all of us can have good housing for all 
of America.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill does not represent a cohesion and a coalition 
of those who would say it is good to have Americans in good housing.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Scottsdale, AZ [Mr. Hayworth], our very able new colleague.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this 
open rule and of H.R. 2406. I believe this legislation signals the end 
of a public housing system which helps trap people in a cycle of 
poverty instead of providing a safety net for families who really need 
short-term assistance.
  Enactment of H.R. 2406 will give public housing residents more 
choices and help those who are able move on to a life of greater self-
sufficiency.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity to publicly 
thank and commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] for his 
efforts to improve our Nation's system of Indian housing. H.R. 3219, 
the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 
1996, which I will offer as an amendment to H.R. 2406, will give tribes 
the flexibility they need to meet their unique housing needs.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation will provide a block grant that will go 
directly to the tribes and those tribes in turn can then use the funds 
to build new housing, renovate existing homes, and revitalize their 
communities
  Mr. Speaker, it is all about local empowerment and empowerment of 
individuals. ``Yes'' on the rule; ``yes'' on the bill.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote to 
defeat the previous question on this rule so that we can offer a clean 
up-or-down vote to raise the minimum wage.
  Mr. Speaker, the minimum wage now stands at a 40-year low in real 
purchasing power. Working American families go to their jobs every day, 
they play by the rules, and they provide for their families. It is 
about time someone gave them a break.
  Today the Republican majority wants to increase the rents for those 
who are on the minimum wage, but they will not give them a wage 
increase. Democrats in this body support the modest proposal to raise 
the minimum wage by 90 cents. At least 21 majority Members have had the 
courage to buck the Republican leadership and sign on to a raise for 
working folks.

[[Page H4567]]

  Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf], 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn], and the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Lazio], please vote against the previous question so we can 
have a vote on the minimum wage.
  A majority of this body supports raising the minimum wage. On April 
17, Speaker Gingrich promised hearings on the minimum wage. Anyone who 
may have believed that promise, it has now been 21 days. Speaker 
Gingrich's taxpayer-funded salary has paid him $9,867 since April 17, 
but a minimum-wage worker takes home only $8,840 in an entire year.
  Mr. Speaker, I call on this House, I call on the Speaker, to stop 
stiffing working Americans. Defeat the previous question so we can get 
a clean up-or-down vote to raise the minimum wage in this country.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Providence, NJ [Mr. Franks].
  (Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support 
of the rule on H.R. 2406. Further, let me take this opportunity to 
congratulate the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] on its innovative 
effort to bring reform to America's Byzantine housing laws.
  Over the past year I have worked with Chairman Lazio to ensure that 
public housing residents for the first time have the opportunity to 
directly elect tenants to their local housing and management 
authorities. For too long the residents of public housing have been 
subjected to poor living conditions. Those conditions often go 
unaddressed because tenants have no elected representation on the very 
housing authorities that oversee these dwellings. The provision that I 
have worked to include in the manager's amendment empowers tenants by 
providing for their direct election on housing boards.
  If Members believe that these authorities should be more accountable 
to the very tenants they exist to serve, I urge all Members to vote 
``yes'' on the rule, ``yes'' on the manager's amendment, and ``yes'' on 
final passage.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion on 
the previous question to this rule to H.R. 2406. We hear a lot of 
rhetoric about moving people off of welfare and out of public housing 
and into work, but the Republican leadership has simply refused an up-
or-down vote on a minimum wage increase.
  Mr. Speaker, a livable wage would give our constituents and other 
working Americans the ability to move off of welfare rolls and out of 
public housing, but the Republicans continue to oppose this minimum 
wage increase. In fact, all we hear in the Senate is that Senator Dole 
wants to call attention to an increase of 4.3 cents in the gas tax in 
1993, but not an increase in the minimum wage at the same time.
  What the Senator fails to inform voters is that he voted for two 5-
cent increases from 1982 to 1990, the so-called ``Dole dime.'' Working 
Americans strongly support an increase in the minimum wage. In fact, 
the latest national poll shows 83 percent of Americans support an 
increase.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a golden opportunity to give American families 
what they really need, a decent wage for a decent day's work. Mr. 
Speaker, it is time for a clean vote on a minimum wage.

                              {time}  1545


                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunning of Kentucky). The Chair reminds 
Members that are speaking on the floor of the House that reference to 
individual Members from the other body should be avoided. The Chair 
reminds Members of that.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Middletown, NY [Mr. Gilman], distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the U.S. Housing 
Act of 1995 and commend its sponsor, the distinguished gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Lazio], for all of his diligent work in bringing this 
important legislation creating a new public housing framework to the 
floor. In addition, I thank the committee for including language to 
correct the improper median income calculation for Rockland County.
  Currently, Rockland County, New York's median income is calculated by 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development as a part of the 
primary metropolitan statistical area which includes the income data 
from New York City. For this reason, HUD lists Rockland County's median 
income of a family of four as $40,500. However, the 1990 census shows 
that the county's true median income to be $60,479, a difference of 
close to $20,000.
  Since HUD's income levels are used in calculating eligibility for 
almost all State and Federal housing programs, these inaccurate 
statistics have severely limited the access of Rockland County 
residents to many needed Federal programs. Income caps for the State of 
New York mortgage agency, Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac, HUD's section 8, the 
home program, and a myriad of other beneficial programs are 
artificially low, thus most of Rockland's residents, financial 
institutions, realtors, and builders are at a severe disadvantage in 
relation to their counterparts in neighboring counties.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the committee for their good work in reforming 
U.S. housing programs and attending to this extremely important local 
need. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2406.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, this debate centers on two issues. At a 
time when the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider, when 
the real wages of American workers has declined by 16 percent over the 
last 20 years, when most of the new jobs being created are low wage 
jobs, part-time jobs, temporary jobs, we must raise the minimum wage so 
that, if somebody works 40 hours a week, they do not live in poverty.
  Second, given the struggle that so many working poor are experiencing 
today, why would anybody want to raise the rents that low-income people 
have to pay in public housing? Why would somebody tell the elderly 
poor, who are barely surviving on Social Security, that they must pay 
higher rents than they are paying today? This is a bad rule. Let us 
defeat it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our able new 
colleague from Gallipolis, OH [Mr. Cremeans].
  (Mr. CREMEANS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks. 
  Mr. CREMEANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2406, the 
United States Housing Act of 1996. This legislation is long overdue.
  Years ago, large high rise housing developments were built and widely 
praised by public housing advocates. Times have changed, and so have 
these housing projects.
  In public housing today, children cower under their beds, as bullets 
fly through the air right outside their bedroom windows.
  Senior citizens live with 10 locks on their doors yet still become 
victims of predators.
  This is not public assistance, this is torture--and it must be 
stopped. Congress has heard the call for help from public housing 
residents, and has responded with this legislation.
  This new Housing Act will reverse the cycle of poverty that keeps 
families in public housing developments for generations.
  It eliminates those Federal policies that discourage work and self-
sufficienty.
  And it will close public housing authorities that are beyond repair.
  This Housing Act is a significant departure from previous attempts to 
reform public housing. This bill reflects the realization that local 
public housing directors know best how to reform

[[Page H4568]]

troubled authorities, not a Federal bureaucrat in Washington.
  I urge my colleagues to support this long overdue legislation.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, America needs a raise. With the minimum 
wage providing the least purchasing power in almost four decades, 
America needs a raise. I concluded that our Republican colleagues have 
finally heard this call for a raise. They know American working people 
need a raise, and so they have given us their response this afternoon. 
They are going to raise rents instead of raising wages.
  I say it is time to raise the roof because it is not right and fair 
to American working people that are out there trying to make ends meet 
to raise their rents without raising their wages.
  We will have an opportunity in the next few seconds to vote on 
whether the minimum wage rises above its 40-year low. All that stands 
between American working families and an increase in the minimum wage 
are eight Republican colleagues; not very many, eight Members.
  Ironically, more than eight members of the Republican caucus have 
already gone out in front of the television cameras and announced that 
they are for an increase in the minimum wage. Yet, they have not yet 
mustered the willingness on the last two votes to raise the minimum 
wage in the last 2 weeks in this Congress to vote to do just that.
  I know the gentleman from California, my friend, says that it is not 
germane to this debate to talk about the minimum wage. It may not be 
germane to the elites, but let me tell you, it is mighty germane to the 
people that are out there scrubbing the floors, folding the linens in 
the motel rooms, serving the fast foods, picking the peas. These are 
the kinds of people that are doing the hard dirty work in our society.
  It was only on April 17 that the Speaker of the House, and he was out 
here on the floor earlier, front page story, headlines, ``Republicans 
Told To Brace for Vote on Minimum Wage, Gingrich Warns Caucus,'' April 
17.
  But only a few days later, after all the special interest lobbyists 
had worked their way, they changed their tune. Let us vote to raise the 
minimum wage.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Stamford, CT [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  The bottom line to this is, this is a vote on the housing bill, on 
the minimum wage. I urge my colleagues to vote for the previous 
question so we can reform public housing, which I have overseen for 9 
years.
  I can tell my colleagues it is in need of tremendous reform. To those 
who say it is a vote on minimum wage, I will say to them, my 
colleagues, I am absolutely convinced we will have a vote on this 
issue. I happen to be one of the eight that the gentleman has made 
reference to. To me, it is not lost that Democrats had 2 years when 
they controlled the White House and Congress. It is kind of 
embarrassing that they make it an issue today, when they could have 
done it when they controlled both the White House and Congress.
  I see this vote on the minimum wage today as a political vote, not a 
substantive vote. I urge my colleagues to vote for the previous 
question. Get on with our job, and we are going to do it. And we are 
going to do it the right way.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing let me simply say again that we do support 
the rule. But we urge a no vote on the previous question. If the 
previous question is defeated, I shall offer an amendment to the rule 
which would make in order a new section in the rule. The provision 
would direct the Committee on Rules, as the Speaker knows, to report a 
resolution immediately that would provide for consideration of a bill 
to incrementally increase the minimum wage from its current $4.25 an 
hour to $5.15 an hour beginning on July 4, 1997.
  That would provide for a separate vote on the minimum wage. Let me 
make it clear to my colleagues both Democrats and Republicans that 
defeating the previous question will in fact allow the House to vote on 
the minimum wage increase. That is what 80 percent of the Americans 
want us to do. So let us do it.
  I include the text of this amendment and accompanying documents for 
the Record at this point in the debate:

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       ``Sec.   . The House of Representatives directs the 
     Committee on Rules to report immediately a resolution 
     providing for the consideration of a measure to increase the 
     minimum wage to not less than $4.70 an hour during the year 
     beginning July 4, 1996, and not less than $5.15 an hour after 
     July 3, 1997.''
                                                                    ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution * * * [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual:
       Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule 
     because the majority Member controlling the time will not 
     yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same 
     result may be achieved by voting down the previous question 
     on the rule * * * When the motion for the previous question 
     is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led 
     the opposition to ordering the previous question. That 
     Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an 
     amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of 
     amendment.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
       Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       The vote on the previous question on a rule does have 
     substantive policy implications. It is the one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and 
``yes'' on the rule itself.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I do so to say that those who are attempting to defeat the previous 
question here are in fact going to block our effort here which this 
subcommittee has put together to clean up the corrupt and horrible 
public housing that we have in this country. Let me conclude by 
reminding my colleagues that defeating the previous question is an 
exercise in futility because the minority wants to offer an amendment 
that will be ruled out of order as nongermane to this rule. That is the 
rules of this House. The fact of the matter is this is a vote without 
substance.
  The previous-question vote itself is simply a procedural vote to 
close debate on this rule and proceed to a vote on its adoption. The 
vote has no substantive or policy implications whatsoever.
  Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record an explanation of the previous 
question:

[[Page H4569]]

                         House Rules Committee


               the previous question vote: what it means

       House Rule XVII (``Previous Question'') provides in part 
     that: There shall be a motion for the previous question, 
     which, being ordered by a majority of the Members voting, if 
     a quorum is present, shall have the effect to cut off all 
     debate and bring the House to a direct vote upon the 
     immediate question or questions on which it has been asked or 
     ordered.
       In the case of a special rule or order of business 
     resolution reported from the House Rules Committee, providing 
     for the consideration of a specified legislative measure, the 
     previous question is moved following the one hour of debate 
     allowed for under House Rules.
       The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural 
     vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting 
     the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and 
     amendment on the legislation it would make in order. 
     Therefore, the vote on the previous question has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, 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 question of agreeing to the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 208, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 153]

                               YEAS--218

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--208

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--8

     de la Garza
     Ford
     Franks (NJ)
     Hostettler
     Largent
     Molinari
     Seastrand
     Smith (WA)

                              {time}  1614

  Mr. MORAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. CASTLE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunning of Kentucky). The question is on 
the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 153, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                          personal explanation

  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 153, I was unavoidably 
late. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 426 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2406.

                              {time}  1615


                     in the Committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
2406) to repeal the United States Housing Act of 1937, deregulate the 
public housing program and the program for rental housing assistance 
for low-income families, and increase community control over such 
programs, and for other purposes; with Mr. Gunderson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] will each be recognized for 
30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio].
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we are at the precipice of an important moment in terms 
of our Nation's communities. Before we begin our debate today on the 
Housing

[[Page H4570]]

Act of 1996, I would like to paint a picture for my colleagues. Imagine 
a city block of tall buildings, formed concrete stained and crumbling 
from decades of neglect. The buildings have no working elevators, no 
lights in the hallways. The stairwells reek of human waste, and drug 
paraphernalia can be found in the corners under stairs. No one stands 
near the windows because they are afraid of stray bullets. Children's 
playgrounds are nothing more than empty dirt and trash. Mothers do not 
want their children to play out in the open.
  There are no malls, no shopping malls, near this block, no banks, no 
businesses, except for a few check cashing stores and an overpriced 
convenience mart. Adults spend weekdays around the complex, because 
they do not have jobs to go to. The police drive around the perimeter 
of the block but will not go inside the complex at night without more 
than one car.
  We all recognize this image, Mr. Chairman. It is public housing. It 
is in America. It is not just public housing in one city, it is public 
housing in the cities and towns in which we live and throughout this 
country.
  Today we are about ending the charade that we are helping poor people 
by condemning them to a life in some of the worst public housing in the 
world. We begin the process of ending this failure and giving families 
who live in these neighborhoods a chance, an opportunity, a chance to 
leave public housing, to be self-sufficient, even to own a home.
  Where did public housing go wrong for so many American families? Much 
of the blame lies with policies that were meant to help people, 
originating from this very Chamber. Decisions that seemed logical when 
they were proposed years ago turned out to have far-reaching negative 
consequences when they were enacted into law.
  The Brooke amendment, which was originally meant to protect 
vulnerable Americans from paying too much in rent, now perversely has 
proven to be a barrier to get a job, because as it is now structured, 
the Brooke amendment means that the same day you go to work your rent 
goes up. It is a tax on work.
  One-for-one replacement. These statutes were statutes that were 
placed by the minority party over the last years which were originally 
instituted to ensure that public housing would not be demolished 
without having built new housing to accommodate the tenants. What is 
the result? The result is that one-for-one replacement rules guarantee 
that huge empty, vacant shells will remain standing in our Nation's 
communities.
  Rules governing Federal tenant preferences were designed to protect 
tenants, but the practical effect of these far-reaching HUD-mandated 
requirements has been to load up waiting lists with the poorest of the 
poor and people whose social needs outweigh the ability of modern 
welfare structures to accommodate them.
  Income targeting provisions ensure that no one is well served by the 
gigantic hulks of despair all too often associated with public housing. 
Families and taxpayers have suffered. The costs associated with public 
housing have risen dramatically over the last 10 or 15 years, at the 
same time median incomes have fallen, a direct result of these 
policies.
  More of the very poor were being sheltered, but taxpayers are being 
asked to pay more for decaying, often crime-ridden properties that trap 
those very same poor people in perpetual poverty. But as I say, this is 
not a financial equation. The real cost is not to the taxpayers, but to 
the families and the children who are forced to live in squalor.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a chance to make housing assistance work again, 
and 2406 is the vehicle for this kind of change. The Housing Act of 
1996 requires that the hulks of failure that characterize high-rise 
public housing be vouchered out. The chronically failed and mismanaged 
housing authorities that have wasted taxpayers' money will be cut off 
completely, and local management groups, even tenants or nonprofits, 
will be brought in to do the work that housing authorities have failed 
to do.
  This legislation starts moving these communities back to environments 
where families are not trapped, where they have a hope and an 
expectation of being self-sufficient again. It makes public housing 
transitional, not by punishing long stays, but by establishing a 
contract between a housing authority and the residents that clearly 
lays out the rights and responsibilities of each.
  It encourages entrepreneurship on the part of housing authorities and 
tenants, letting them put money back into their community and 
encouraging the kind of initiative that can turn around a neighborhood, 
a family, and even a person's life.

  This bill realizes that to be successful, we have to end the 
Washington-based model that enforces inappropriate one-size-fits-all 
policies that have represented the policies of the last 30 years in our 
local communities. It repeals Federal tenant preferences and replaces 
them with local preferences. It ends overly restrictive targeting and 
gives local communities the power to set rents based on real needs, 
rents that will help people return to the work force.
  This legislation changes the whole way the Government looks at 
housing assistance and is a step toward forging a new partnership, a 
new relationship between citizens and Government, one where Government 
can truly be a partner.
  I am very proud to be here today before this Congress, Mr. Chairman, 
to present the United States Housing Act of 1996, because I believe, 
Mr. Chairman, this is a step toward hope for many of the people about 
whom we care most. I look forward to this debate because here in this 
House, the house of the American people, we have to face the reality of 
the 20th century and the challenges of the 21st century. Here today is 
where we define the future, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill really for the first time enacts into law the 
fundamental and un--American principle of blaming the victim. That is 
what this bill is all about.
  We essentially have seen over the course of the last several years, 
politician after politician walk before every housing monstrosity in 
the United States, point to public housing, time and time again, and 
say, ``This is an example of liberal Democratic politics at its worst. 
This is an eyesore, an acute demonstration of why the Johnson era of 
liberal Democratic spending on Government programs simply has been 
outmoded.''
  The truth of the matter is that public housing policy in this country 
is the greatest unfulfilled dream that has ever been encompassed by 
this body. What we have said is that we are going to house poor people. 
But then we never gave the housing authorities anything close to the 
resources that were necessary to provide the housing they were asked to 
give to the people that are of such low income.
  Then what we do is, after we starve those public housing authorities 
and the individual public housing projects, we come along, take a 
picture of ourselves in front of them, and say, ``This is a terrible 
example of Government spending.'' What do we do? What is our solution 
to this problem? It is to cut the funding.
  Last year without a single hearing we cut, in order to solve the 
problem of public housing, 25 percent of the budget of public housing. 
Now what we are doing in this bill is coming back and saying, ``Look, 
public housing does not work, so what we are going to do is essentially 
allow and enact into law provisions which allow us to jack up the rents 
on the people that exist in public housing, thereby throwing a lot of 
poor people out of public housing, and, I might add, working families 
out of public housing.''
  This bill, more than anything else, hurts working families, the 
working poor. People that earn the minimum wage are going to be 
displaced by the actions taken in this bill.
  What we are saying is that when you are in public housing, we are 
going to knock you out; if you are in assisted housing, we are going to 
knock you out; if you are elderly or disabled, you are at risk. Those 
are the provisions that are hidden in the sneaky language that we are 
not going to hear by the other side of the aisle.
  What is important for us to recognize, Mr. Chairman, is yes, there 
need

[[Page H4571]]

to be changes in how we handle public housing. I think Secretary 
Cisneros and President Clinton deserve credit, as I want to provide 
credit to Chairman Lazio, for the portions of this bill that allow us 
to cut out badly run public housing authorities, to cut out badly run 
public housing agencies, to get rid of the one-for-one public housing 
criteria that was included in past bills, to deal with the Federal 
preferences which have gotten us far too concentrated on serving just 
the very, very poor.

                              {time}  1630

  Maintaining the drug elimination grants, maintaining the Hope 6 
program, these are all the positive aspects which I think Chairman 
Lazio should be proud of and that I am proud to associate myself with.
  But the trouble is that the bill goes too far. We end up eliminating 
the Brooke amendment, which has been the most fundamental protection 
for poor people in this country. We say as a protection to the poor 
that we will not ask them to pay anything more than 30 percent of their 
income in rent. Thirty percent of their income in rent is a lot of 
money for ordinary families. So by eliminating that, certainly it 
protects the housing authorities because they can jack up the rent.
  So the poor people in the housing authorities have no place to go, so 
we send them out on the street. Then what do we do? We turn around and 
say that we are going to cut the homeless programs in this country by 
another 25 percent. So not only do we go about actually creating 
homelessness in this program, we then go and cut the very program that 
is supposed to take care of them.
  The people that we do not hear from in this bill are the people that 
are going to be displaced by this bill. We have two amendments that we 
need, that if we can see this body pass them today, I will recommend 
that we vote in support of this bill.
  First and foremost is Barney Frank's amendment to protect the Brooke 
amendment. If we protect the Brooke amendment and do that with the 
necessary targeting, so that we do not just throw out the poor and that 
we do not throw out the working families, the working poor of this 
country, then I tell Chairman Lazio right now that I would recommend 
that the Democrats of this House of Representatives support the bill.
  Without those fundamental protections, this is essentially flawed and 
bad legislation. It will hurt working families. It will hurt the poor. 
It will hurt senior citizens, and it will hurt the disabled.
  Let us stand up for principle in this body. Let us stand up for what 
is right in terms of not only public housing policy but the moral fiber 
and the moral value that is associated with the United States of 
America.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make one comment here. In terms of this bill, 
there is some rhetoric involving the raising of rents. There is nothing 
in this bill that raises the rents on a single person now in public or 
assisted housing. Seniors are protected. The disabled are protected, 
and the poorest of the poor are protected. What we are trying to do is 
remove obstacles to work.
  I also want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Kennedy], for his cooperation throughout the process. Thank you 
very much, Joe Kennedy.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2406 and want to 
thank Mr. Lazio for his leadership on this bill. The Banking Committee, 
the House, and indeed the American people, are indebted to the 
gentleman from New York for the hard work and intellect he has put into 
this major reform legislation.
  Let me speak to several aspects of the bill.
  The chief goal of the legislation is to expand housing choices for 
low and moderate income people and to devolve power from Washington to 
local communities.
  The legislative intent is to move away from reliance on highrise 
public housing projects and encourage the use of housing vouchers. It 
is the assumption of the committee that it is cost effective, as well 
as compassionate, to give low and moderate income people the ability to 
get away from projects which too often are infested with crime and 
drugs and move into communities where they can raise their families in 
safer, cleaner environments and where they will have an enhanced 
ability to improve their lives.
  It is further the assumption of the committee that the people of the 
Bostons and Indianapolises and Davenports of the Nation can be trusted 
to more effectively and efficiently operate housing programs for the 
people of these communities than can those in Washington who the 
current law favors. Hence, the bill puts more power in the hands of 
those who know their localities best--the residents and local leaders 
who live in the communities affected.
  H.R. 2406 is a prime example of commonsense reform. There is nothing 
radical or extreme here. The committee has simply recognized that 
government-built slums serve nobody's interest. What is needed is 
decent support for decent people who can make their own choices and 
control their own destinies.
  I again congratulate Mr. Lazio for his leadership on this important 
legislation, and the staff of the Housing and Community Opportunity 
Subcommittee for the many hours they have put into this effort.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], the former chairman of the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2406 in part follows bipartisan 
reforms adopted by the House in the last Congress, however, in part it 
profoundly departs from what had been a bipartisan policy of assuring 
that scarce Federal housing resources are used to help those who are in 
the greatest need. The basic assumption of H.R. 2406 is that local 
housing authorities should have the greatest possible leeway to spend 
Federal dollars. I am skeptical of a bill that provides precious few 
standards and guideposts to agencies that are dealing with the most 
complex and vexing of economic and social problems.
  The bill is designed to encourage housing authorities to raise rents 
and to deny housing to people who cannot pay significant amounts of 
money for housing. This would have two effects: It would make housing 
authorities richer, and poor people poorer. It would increase the 
number of homeless people, and it would add to the distress of people 
who are already unable to meet their most basic needs. There is a 
better way to deal with the financial problems of housing authorities.
  H.R. 2406 contains some sensible reforms, most of which the House has 
previously passed with overwhelming support. Unhappily, the bill also 
contains many simplistic and ultimately unworkable provisions, which I 
hope the amendment process will improve.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation returns decisionmaking authority to 
the local level instead of a Washington bureaucracy, allowing public 
housing authorities to provide clean, safe, healthy, and affordable 
housing to needy persons and families in a more cost effective and 
managerially sound manner. It is imperative, in my judgment, that we 
reform the Nation's public housing programs to weed out those that have 
chronic problems and to encourage local housing authorities to tailor 
their programs to the specialized needs of their community.
  I am particularly pleased that Chairman Lazio has included provisions 
in the manager's amendment that deal with housing occupancy standards. 
Last week I introduced a bill which has been included in the amendment 
that would clarify that States should be able to set occupancy 
standards and not HUD.
  There is a national consensus that the maximum number of occupants

[[Page H4572]]

most housing can accommodate without triggering the negative effects of 
crowding is two people per bedroom. The provision in the bill is a 
necessary clarification to stop attempts by HUD to adopt unrealistic 
occupancy policies. In recent years, HUD has pushed housing providers 
to accept beyond two people per bedroom, a policy that would lead to 
overcrowding, and take control of the apartment properties away from 
their owners and managers.
  The manager's amendment provision clarifies it in three ways: First, 
HUD may not micromanage this issue by setting Federal occupancy 
standards; second, that State occupancy standards are authoritative; 
and third, that in the absence of the State standards, a two-person-
per-bedroom policy is assumed reasonable.
  This provision is supported by a remarkably wide range of housing 
provider groups, including all of the public housing associations as 
well as homebuilders, private apartment owners, seniors housing, 
section 8, and manufactured housing groups.
  The bill overall will encourage mixed income populations instead of 
segregating the poorest of the poor, will help end the cycle which has 
perpetuated dependence on Federal support and disincentives to work.
  Additionally, this bill imposes a death penalty on poorly run public 
housing authorities with longstanding records of failure. The time is 
overdue to change the Washington-knows-best attitude toward public 
housing. Who else should know best how to serve residents in 
communities than local housing providers who live and work in these 
areas? Chairman Lazio and his staff have drafted a commendable bill, 
and I encourage its support.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my 
good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake], who is himself an 
innovator, developer of low-income housing in New York City.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2406, the 
United States Housing Act. I would, however, like to commend my friend, 
Mr. Lazio, and his staff on their leadership and outstanding efforts to 
produce a housing bill that Members on both sides of the aisle could 
support. Unfortunately, Mr. Lazio's bill has good intentions, but falls 
short in its efforts to protect public housing's poorest families.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States Housing Act, essentially closes the 
door on poor public housing residents. The bill makes small efforts to 
accommodate the poor by reserving 30 percent of public housing units 
for families of four who are living on approximately $15,000 a year in 
a city with high living standards like New York. Statistics show that 
the average income of residents in public housing is $6,400 a year. 
Simple math tells us that this type of housing policy does not provide 
for dire housing needs of the poorest housing residents. In the absence 
of such a policy, we will find more people on the streets.
  Mr. Chairman, I am truly concerned that this bill will have a drastic 
effect on the housing of the poor in New York. According to the 
provisions included as a part of the manager's amendment to this bill, 
the New York City Housing Authority, as a well-performing local housing 
authority, would not be subject to any rent caps or targeting. Without 
these rent caps and targeting provisions, there is no assurance that a 
public housing authority will provide poor families who are unable to 
pay higher rents with housing. Public housing was not designed to 
accommodate those who can pay the most. Private rental housing is 
designed for that. In a country with such a wealth of resources, poor 
families should not have to go without shelter.
  Mr. Chairman, there are 225,000 people currently on the waiting list 
for public housing in New York. The housing need is great and the 
opportunities are few. This bill provides us with no assurance that 
poor and individuals like seniors and the disabled who have limited 
income will be treated equitably in this process. Let's protect the 
interests of these individuals. The Kennedy and the Frank/Gutierrez 
amendment attempts to protect these individuals and I urge support for 
each.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts].
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, the time is right for us to 
replace an outdated Depression-era law that was written in 1937. 
Instead of being rewritten to reflect modern housing needs and the 
challenges associated with public housing entities, the 1937 Housing 
Act had only been given quick legislative fixes which have resulted in 
regulation based on regulation placing local housing authorities in a 
stranglehold, unable to address problems at the community level.
  The Great Society programs of the last 30 years, although well 
intentioned, only exacerbate the downward spiral of our low-income 
communities. By allowing government to replace the institutions that 
give structure and order to our neighborhoods, the Great Society 
programs have fractured these communities and placed unnecessary 
obstacles in the way of faith, family, work, and community.
  Big government is part of the problem--not the solution. We need to 
promote an infrastructure where solutions to these prolems can come 
from epople who have the same zip code as the people they are helping. 
H.R. 2406, the United States Housing Act of 1996, does this.
  This bill eliminates the existing 3,400 public housing authorities 
and replaces each with a new local management housing authority [LMHA]. 
These local management housing authoriies will be allowed to make 
decisions, within broad parameters, tailored to the specialized needs 
of local communities.
  H.R. 2406 puts power in the hands of local communities, residents, 
and nonprofits, not Washington bureaucrats, by ending monopolies some 
public housing authorities have over housing for low-income American 
families. This bill ends the reliance on the flawed bureaucratic views 
and policies of housing assistance: that more boutique programs and 
more money means better living conditions. This bill addresses the 
fundamental needs of people and communities.
  This bill offers Federal resources to aid families and individuals 
seeking affordable homes that are safe, clean, and healthy, and in 
particular, assist responsible, deserving citizens who cannot provide 
fully for themselves because of temporary circumstances or factors 
beyond their control.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].

                              {time}  1645

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise first to thank my friend, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for all of the work that he 
is doing in this Nation on behalf of poor people and working people, 
particularly paying attention to their housing needs. Really I thank 
the gentleman from new York, Mr. Lazio, for the job he is doing, and I 
agree with my friend, Mr. Kennedy, we could clean up this legislation 
and, with the Kennedy-Gutierrez amendment, perhaps we could all support 
this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, for now I must rise in strong opposition to this bill. 
H.R. 2406 completely restructures public and tenant-based housing in 
ways that will have detrimental consequences for the very families they 
are intended to serve. We all recognize there is a need for reform, but 
this bill, H.R. 2406, goes too far. This bill will put poor families in 
jeopardy of losing their housing because they will be unable to pay 
higher rents. Applicants who have been on waiting lists for years, may 
never get housing assistance under this bill because they are not in 
the desired income range.
  I am most concerned with the provisions in this bill that give 
housing authorities broad authority to set minimum and maximum rent 
without the protection of the Brooke amendment. Under H.R. 2406, 
residents, regardless of their income or circumstances, can be charged 
whatever rent housing authorities set. At a minimum, all residents will 
pay $25 to $50 in rent. This will apply to residents with income as 
well as those with no income at all.

  For many families, this will mean choosing between shelter and food 
or clothing or medicine. About two-thirds of those affected will be 
families with children. These are families with the worst-case housing 
needs. These are families with very little income, and in

[[Page H4573]]

many cases no income at all. These are the families that programs like 
public and assisted housing are designed to help.
  How can we bring this bill to the floor when we know that worst-case 
housing needs reached an all-time high of 5.3 million in 1993, and that 
number has remained high? Almost 2 million of those with worst-case 
needs are working households, including many working-poor families with 
children.
  Are we going to just turn our backs on these families? That is 
exactly what this bill does, and this is exactly why I cannot support 
it, unless we have these amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not just here because I want to preserve something 
that does not work. I am here because I know first hand about the needs 
of poor people. I am here because I know first hand about the families 
that live in these housing authorities. I did not visit them just 1 
day. Every time I go home I make sure I spend time in public housing 
authorities.
  Certainly we have problems, but these problems are not created by the 
people who need this housing. The problems sometimes are in management. 
We do not need to kick them out of housing by charging them higher 
rents. We need to support the ability for them to have a decent and 
safe place to live.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to note on the issue of minimum rents, the 
gentlewoman from California had noted that issue. Minimum rents are set 
in this bill at $25 to $50 at the discretion of the local housing 
authority, but there is a hardship exemption--safety valve--for those 
people with a particular hardship or need.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State 
of Delaware [Mr. Castle], the former Governor of that great State, and 
a member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Lazio for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Lazio and his staff for 
their hard work, and for their commitment to improving public housing. 
I would also like to thank the chairman for recognizing that public 
housing authorities and programs should be evaluated on their 
performance.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe our Government has a responsibility to ensure 
vulnerable populations have access to safe, affordable housing, but HUD 
needs serious reform. H.R. 2406, the U.S. Housing Act, reforms and 
streamlines HUD from the top down. It empowers local authorities, 
benefits public housing residents, and saves taxpayers' money.
  Local authorities know their community's needs far better than a 
Washington bureaucrat, which is why H.R. 2406 replaces the current 
tangle of Federal strings with two funding grants for public housing. 
If we are going to hold local officials responsible for the quality of 
their community's public housing, they should have the power to 
implement the solutions that fit their community's needs.
  Delaware runs its public housing programs exceptionally well, and I 
believe Delaware and other successful States should be rewarded. Under 
H.R. 2406, 100 of the most successful local housing authorities will be 
empowered to develop innovative programs to help move residents out of 
public housing and into their own homes. This creates incentives for 
housing authorities to ensure their facilities are fiscally sound, 
physically safe, and efficiently run.
  H.R. 2406 continues to help us achieve these worthy goals, and I am 
proud to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage Chairman Lazio in a colloquy.
  Well-run housing authorities, such as we have in Delaware, should be 
rewarded for their success. With the help of the chairman, during the 
markup of H.R. 2406, I successfully added an amendment requiring that 
the performance of a housing authority should be taken into account 
under the block grant allocation formula.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, 
that is correct.
  Mr. CASTLE. I want to ensure that well-run housing authorities are 
rewarded for running fiscally sound and physically safe housing 
facilities. Mr. Chairman, will changes made in the funding process 
reflect this goal?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Yes. The intent of this legislation is to 
ensure that well-run housing authorities are not penalized for their 
success. Rather, they are rewarded for operating efficiently, and they 
are given appropriate levels of flexibility to reward that proven 
success in delivering housing services to their constituency.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to support this much-needed 
legislation.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out 
that one of the rewards, the so-called rewards being referred to here, 
is in fact, the elimination of the Brooke amendment. So what we are 
saying is if you run a housing authority well, we are going to allow 
you to in fact turn your back on some of the poorer people in this 
country. We are going to allow you to turn your back on the amount of 
rent that those individuals that you are going to bring into the 
housing authority are going to be charged.
  I do not think that that is the kind of reward system that we ought 
to be putting into place. I think we ought to hold these housing 
authorities to standards of performance that they in fact take care of 
those individuals, and when they do not take care of these, we ought to 
provide the power to the Secretary to usurp the local authority's power 
and to take that and be able to get the authority back on its feet 
through the appointment of an individual that has the power and 
authority to make the proper decisions.
  That is the kind of system that the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Lazio], and myself and I am sure the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. 
Castle], can agree on. It is this additional benefit of eliminating the 
targeting to the poor, of eliminating the Brooke amendment, that 
rewards these housing authorities in a way that perversely allows them 
to turn their back on the very people that they are designed to serve.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman 
from New York [Ms. Velazquez], who speaks eloquently on behalf of our 
Nation's poor in the Subcommittee on Housing.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, before I give my opening statement, I 
would like to remind Chairman Lazio that the minimum rent is not $25, 
to $50. That is what the gentleman is proposing in his manager's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, as the representative of one of this country's largest 
public housing populations, I rise today to express my outrage to this 
bill. Many of the provisions in this legislation threaten poor 
families, the disabled, and seniors' most basic and human needs--safe 
affordable housing.
  Public housing in America began very differently than what it has 
evolved into. During the 1930's, America made the commitment that 
adequate housing was right, not just a privilege. To fulfill this 
pledge, we undertook a program that aimed to provide affordable housing 
for everyone who needed it.
  Times have changed and over the years, the Housing Act of 1937 has 
become antiquated and unresponsive. To address this Secretary Cisneros 
has undertaken changes that now allow HUD to respond to public 
housing's unique challenges.
  Mr. Chairman, repealing the Housing Act of 1937 is not that sort of 
change! H.R. 2406 represents a significant departure from our national 
commitment to the poor and needy. Gone are such safety nets as income 
targeting, and the Brooke amendment.
  Even the majority leader from the other body and the Speaker of this 
House have joined the bandwagon by calling public housing the last 
bastion of socialism and that it should be abolished. What an outrage. 
They should be ashamed, posturing simply for political gains at the 
expense of this Nation's needy is disgraceful.
  Decent and affordable housing is already out of reach for more than 
the 5 million neediest households. Let's end this charade! Housing 
legislation should ensure that poor people have a roof over their 
heads, not push seniors, children, and poor families into the street. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this cruel and shameful legislation.

[[Page H4574]]

  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree that we should end this charade, the charade 
that we measure compassion by sheltering or warehousing poor people in 
some of the worst slums in America that have been built by the Federal 
Government. In State Street, Chicago, there are 10,000 people with an 
unemployment rate that is virtually universal. If that is now we 
measure compassion, then I am out of touch. If that is how some people 
in this body measure compassion, that is why we are trying to break out 
of this mold. That is why we are trying to end the Brooke amendment, 
which penalizes work and is a disincentive to work.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished colleague, 
the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf].
  (Mr. METCALF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I thank Subcommittee Chairman Lazio and 
Chairman Leach for bringing commonsense housing reform to the floor 
today. For too long, housing authorities have been burdened by 
excessive Federal regulations, bureaucracy, and paperwork. H.R. 2406 
will deregulate public housing and given greater flexibility to well-
run housing agencies. We must no longer tolerate chronically bad public 
housing authorities that have used taxpayers' dollars irresponsibly.
  I also commend Mr. Lazio for his efforts to protect the most 
vulnerable populations. Under the manager's amendment, we cap rents at 
30 percent of income for the elderly, disabled, and the very poor. This 
provision will protect a majority of current and prospective public 
housing residents.
  The U.S. Housing Act is not just a quick fix or an extreme solution. 
It is a real solution which will end public housing as we know it and 
take a step toward welfare reform.
  I am fortunate to live in a district with good public housing 
agencies which will continue to serve those who need affordable 
housing. Whether it is the Everett Housing Authority or the Housing 
Authority of Island County, they express the same message: give us 
greater flexibility and less Federal interference. This is what 
Americans are asking for--eliminate unneeded Federal bureaucracy and 
transfer power and authority to State and local levels.
  I ask my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to point out the fact that in the case of the 
Chicago Housing Authority, which does have over 50,000 residents and 
where we do see enormous problems, it was Secretary Cisneros that went 
out there and took the bull by the horns and began to make changes in 
that housing authority. We do not need anything in this legislation to 
fix what is wrong with the Chicago Housing Authority. The fact of the 
matter is, the changes that we could make together and have agreement 
on are very easy. The ones that repeal Brooke and repeal the targeting 
are the ones that we have a problem with, and those portions of this 
legislation are what are going to unhinge the promise of public 
housing.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard].
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Lazio and 
Mr. Kennedy for addressing the issues facing our Nation's housing 
providers and public and assisted housing residents.
  I would also like to acknowledge Secretary Henry Cisneros for his 
leadership and successful efforts to improve our Nation's public 
housing programs.
  The deregulation of the housing industry and the more efficient use 
of scarce housing resources are important goals. This bill, however, 
simply goes to far.
  The repeal of the Brooke amendment and changes to current income 
targeting laws in this bill will eliminate important safety nets, 
causing the devastation of millions of families across the country.
  With the repeal of the Brooke amendment, in my Los Angeles district 
alone over 10,000 residents will no longer be protected from rents that 
exceed 30 percent of their monthly income.
  Furthermore, drastic cuts to income targeting in public and assisted 
housing will drastically reduce the availability of housing for 
thousands of families, many of whom are currently homeless or living 
far below the poverty line.
  Although the bill contains provisions that authorize HUD to review 
the rent structure of large housing authorities if certain income 
targets are not met or if a significant percent of tenants are paying 
over 30 percent of their incomes in rent, the bill does not have the 
guarantees of affordable and available housing that the Brooke 
amendment and current targeting laws provide.
  Mr. Chairman, today we have the opportunity to preserve the Brooke 
and income targeting laws by voting for the amendments offered by Mr. 
Frank, Mr. Gutierrez, and Mr. Kennedy.
  It is crucial that these amendments pass, if this bill is to 
successfully meet the challenge of public housing: To prevent 
homelessness and provide public and assisted housing to those in 
greatest need.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich].
  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to compliment the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] for his thoughtful approach to 
housing issues. The gentleman well knows housing issues are a major 
issue in my district.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to compliment the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the ranking member. We have very great 
philosophical differences, as the ranking member knows, but I know he 
believes what he says and I respect that.
  Mr. Chairman, the Brooke amendment, a tax on work, corrupt and inept 
public housing authorities, no rights and responsibilities for tenants, 
mixing of the elderly poor with drug addicts and alcoholics, the 
consistent waste of taxpayer money, all in the name of compassion.
  Well, what I am here to say today is that compassion is not always a 
function of more Federal money, nor is compassion always a function of 
more Federal control.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill represents a first positive step in what I 
hope will be a new era in Federal housing policy. I know we are going 
to have lots of debate and lots of amendments on the floor this 
evening, and I look forward to that very substantive debate.
  I also look forward to a colloquy with the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Lazio], the chairman of my subcommittee. I look forward to that 
colloquy because the chairman knows my concern about the extreme, ill-
advised, unprecedented, and dangerous policies being promulgated by the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development on the folks in the 
Baltimore metropolitan area these days.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney], my good friend and an active 
member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity.
  (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, in 1937 we made a commitment to provide 
decent, affordable housing to our Nation's lower income citizens. That 
is a commitment I am not willing to scrap.
  Public housing can work. It has been a tremendous success in New York 
City, where more than 225,000 New Yorkers are on the waiting list to 
get into public housing. Not all public housing in this country is as 
successful, and we need change. HUD is already taking steps to make 
needed changes.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to thank the members on 
both sides of the aisle for supporting the amendment I offered in 
committee with my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Baker], 
to allow HUD to review the long-term viability of the local housing 
management plans. Taxpayers are entitled to meaningful review. This 
amendment ensures it, and I thank Chairman Lazio from the great State 
of New York for accepting my amendment.

[[Page H4575]]

  But while we work to improve public housing, we must not abdicate our 
commitment to our poorest public housing residents. The bill does just 
that.
  A 30-percent cap would be maintained for the elderly, disabled, and 
the very poor, but would only apply to current residents. What about 
the future residents who need housing? Even worse, within 3 years, the 
300 best performing authorities would be completely exempt from even 
these minimal requirements.
  The current Brooke provision provides renters, landlords, and 
appropriators with a standard. By abolishing the standard, I believe we 
abolish the mission. The bottom line is we can fix the problems in 
public housing without penalizing seniors and our poorest residents.
  Let us make sure we stay focused on reforming the parts that do not 
work, not throwing out the parts that do.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to the comments of the 
gentlewoman from New York with respect to so-called Brooke protection 
which is still in place as a ceiling for current tenants and 
prospectively for those poorest of the poor, the people at 30 percent 
or below median income, which is almost 76 percent of the population.
  But Brooke, for those people that are trying to get themselves up the 
ladder and trying to work, has been a huge work disincentive. It is a 
job killer and a disincentive for people to transition back into the 
marketplace.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Housing and Community Opportunity.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
legislation before us today, House Resolution 2406. I wanted to mention 
three or four specific items that I think thus far have not been 
enumerated. They are very important provisions.
  Mr. Chairman, we have one which creates home ownership opportunities, 
that would clarify the home ownership opportunities offered under the 
legislation and the ability of the housing authority and other low-
income housing providers to undertake the process of preparation and 
sale of units to residents who are eligible for home ownership.
  Second, we have a provision in here which clarifies and provides 
guidance on the factors necessary to require conversion of public 
housing assistance to vouchers, including some conditions and certain 
situations that are specified under the law. I think that is very 
important.
  The financial assistance for severely distressed buildings with no 
eventual useful life will be terminated and, therefore, converted to 
housing voucher assistance.
  There is a section here which is directed to voluntary vouchering out 
of public housing. That should be important to local housing and 
management authorities.
  Mr. Chairman, let me move to two other items. We have one which we 
might refer to as shopping incentives for assisted families. This 
provision allows for shopping incentives for assisted families under a 
choice-based housing which rewards the market-rate selection of rental 
units that fall below the payment standard for that community.
  Finally, a section which relates to homeless and surplus property 
community participation and self-help housing. This will amend section 
203 of the Federal Property Administrative Services Act by providing 
communities with an opportunity to participate in the disposition of 
significant surplus property.
  Mr. Chairman, these are a few of the important provisions that 
perhaps have not been mentioned, but they are important provisions that 
make an advance in housing for people across the country.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson], my friend and our newest 
member of the subcommittee.
  (Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to emphatically 
oppose the United States Housing Act of 1996 as it is currently 
drafted. In its present form, H.R. unravels 60 years of Federal housing 
policy by pulling the safety net out from under our Nation's most 
vulnerable and, despite the rhetoric to the contrary, hits our working 
poor particularly hard. Adequate and safe housing is a human right and 
should not be considered by this body as a privilege.
  Left completely on its own, contrary to what the other side of the 
aisle would lead us to believe, the market has not and will not provide 
safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for all Americans. The market 
has a role which I respect and it plays that role well, but its role 
does not under all circumstances represent the interests of all 
Americans, especially the poor and low-income Americans.
  As we consider this critical piece of legislation, we must be mindful 
of some very dangerous implications implicit in this bill. First, we 
must maintain the 30-percent income cap imposed by the Brooke amendment 
for all public housing and rental-assisted tenants. This includes poor 
and the working poor.
  Second, we must continue to target housing assistance primarily for 
the most vulnerable.
  Third, we cannot impose minimum rents without any kind of hardship 
exemption upon those without the resources to provide for their 
families. This includes protecting innocent children and some 750,000 
elderly who currently rely upon government assistance for their 
survival.
  Fourth, we must work to protect the role of those affected, the 
residents themselves, in the development of the policies and procedures 
which govern their day-to-day lives.
  By leaving the cap on the poorest of the poor those below 30 percent 
of median income and thus those below the poverty line, as provided for 
in the manager's amendment, and lifting the cap for those above 30 
percent, H.R. 2406 essentially increases the concentration of the 
poorest of Americans in public housing and abandons the working poor, 
allowing their rents to be lifted to compensate for dwindling Federal 
support. The working poor will now be forced to disproportionately 
spend their meager take-home pay on rent at the expense of other 
household necessities.
  While the objective of mixed-income communities is a laudable one, 
for many reasons this legislation will further exacerbate the 
affordable housing gap existing in our Nation. Without adequately 
targeting low and very low-income Americans for assistance, this 
legislation will drive the poor out of public assisted housing and into 
overcrowded and unsafe housing, or force people onto the streets.
  Mr. Chairman, the overriding problem with this and past legislative 
efforts is that we never have ever provided sufficient funding and 
resources to allow public housing residents to move beyond public 
housing. We must be about the business of providing job training and 
retraining, education, child care, and true opportunities to allow 
public housing residents to move into private housing and private life.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation if we 
do not rectify the very serious issues before us.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to emphatically oppose the U.S. Housing 
Act of 1995 as it is currently drafted. In its present form, H.R. 2406 
unravels 60 years of Federal housing policy by pulling the safety net 
out from under our Nation's most vulnerable and despite rhetoric to the 
contrary, hits our working poor particularly hard. Adequate and safe 
housing as a human right, it should not be considered a privilege.
  As civilization and economies develop, certain basics of the material 
life--health care, education, food and shelter--should not be turned 
over completely to market forces, to a ``survival of the fittest'' 
situation. In such a system, the few always wind up on top with the 
best and most of everything, while the many end up on the bottom with 
the least and worst of everything--in this case, housing.
  Left completely on its own, the market will not provide safe, 
sanitary, and affordable housing for all Americans. The market has a 
role, which I respect, and it plays its role well. But its role does 
not under all circumstances, represent the interests of all Americans, 
especially poor and low-income Americans.

[[Page H4576]]

  The government of, by, and for the people has an important role to 
play in assuring that every American has safe, sanitary, and affordable 
housing. This is why we initially passed public housing legislation in 
1937, to provide affordable housing for all Americans--housing for 
those that the market did not serve. Public housing was later expanded 
to specifically include the poor, the elderly, and the disabled.
  We should not treat housing like we do peanuts, soybeans, beer, and 
cars--commodities to be produced, distributed, and sold privately in 
the market place for profit. Need--the need for adequate and affordable 
housing, is the basis for the Government's role in housing.
  If the market addressed the need, then our dilemma would be of a 
different nature, but it hasn't and it doesn't. Thus, as 
representatives of all of the American people--not just those that can 
survive in a private, ``survival of the fittest'' housing market--we 
must assume our responsibility.
  In the late 1960's a White House Conference on Housing recommended 26 
million new housing starts over the decade of the 1970's, 6 million in 
public housing and government-assisted housing--2.6 million housing 
starts per year for 10 years, 600,000 in public or subsidized housing. 
We have never reached the 2.6 million annual goal. Thus, after two-and-
one-half decades of failing to meet that goal, our Nation's people are 
even more ill-housed than they were 25 years ago. And now some Members 
of this Congress want to remove the Government's role in requiring that 
tenants not pay disproportionate portions of their income to provide 
their families housing above substandard conditions.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2406 will deny many of our Nation's neediest 
parents the opportunity to raise their children in a climate where 
their rental contributions do not preclude the provision of household 
essentials--clothing, medicine, food, and other necessities we take for 
granted.
  As we consider this critical legislation, we must be mindful of some 
very dangerous implications implicit in this bill. First, we must 
maintain the 30 percent income cap imposed by the Brooke amendment of 
1969 for all public housing and rental-assisted tenants, this including 
the poor and the working poor. Second, we must continue to target 
housing assistance primarily for our most vulnerable. Third, we cannot 
impose minimum rents without any kind of hardship exemption upon those 
without the resources to provide for their families--this includes 
protecting innocent children and the some 750,000 elderly who currently 
rely upon governmental assistance for their survival. And fourth, we 
must work to protect the role of those most affected--the residents 
themselves, in the development of the policies and procedures which 
govern their day to day lives.
  Named for its sponsor, Senator Edward Brooke, the Brooke amendment 
was enacted into law in 1969 to guarantee that residents of public and 
assisted housing would pay no more than 25 percent of their income for 
rent. In 1981, the cap was lifted to 30 percent. The policies 
represented in H.R. 2406 are going in the exact opposite direction. By 
leaving the cap on the poorest of the poor--those below 30 percent of 
median income and thus below the poverty line--as provided for in the 
managers amendment--and lifting the cap for those above 30 percent--
H.R. 2406 essentially increases concentration of the poorest of 
Americans in public housing and abandons the working poor--allowing 
their rents to be lifted to compensate for dwindling federal support. 
The working poor will now be forced to disproportionately spend their 
meager take-home pay on rent at the expense of other household 
necessities.
  While the objective of mixed-income communities is a laudable one for 
many reasons, this legislation will further exacerbate the affordable 
housing gap existing in our Nation. Without adequately targeting low- 
and very low-income Americans for assistance, this legislation will, in 
effect, drive the poor out of public and assisted housing, and into 
overcrowded and unsafe housing, or force people onto the streets.

  Despite the reality that these provisions do not, on their own merit, 
adequately provide for affordable housing, to make matters worse, the 
300 best-managed authorities will be completely exempted from rent caps 
and targeting protections.
  Mr. Chairman, the overriding problem with this and past legislative 
efforts is that we never provide sufficient funding and resources to 
allow public housing residents to move beyond public housing. We must 
be about the business of providing job training and retraining, 
education, childcare, and true opportunities to allow public housing 
residents to move into private housing and private life. I encourage my 
colleagues to enact these kinds of empowerment initiatives to 
effectuate this kind of societal transformation.
  Faced with dwindling Federal resources, owners of tenant-assisted 
housing and public housing authorities will be forced by market 
realities to prefer tenants who are better able to pay higher rents to 
make ends meet. After all, where does one go for housing if he or she 
is making $7,800 a year on average--which is the case for those living 
in public housing. In most communities, 30 percent of Area Median 
Income is roughly equivalent to the poverty line. According to HUD 
studies, it is these families that have the worst case housing needs--
meaning that they are most likely to pay 50 percent or more of their 
income in rent each month or live in substandard housing. Over 70 
percent--71.3 percent--of poor renter households living below the 
Federal poverty line pay more than 30 percent of their income for rent, 
whereas only 41 percent of all renter households have excessive rent 
burdens.
  I oppose the idea of minimum rent for those who cannot afford it. HUD 
Secretary Henry Cisneros has already indicated that the recently 
implemented $25 minimum rents are already causing hardships for roughly 
175,000 families in public and assisted housing nationwide. In 
Illinois, 2,338 families living in public housing; 1,377 households 
that receive certificates and vouchers; and 749 families living in 
section 8 housing; for a total of 4,464 families have already been 
negatively effected with the addition of the $25 minimum. These are 
people who are already straining to meet their families needs and who 
are already sometimes choosing between food, medicine, and housing.
  H.R. 2406 contains minimum rents of up to $50. In my State of 
Illinois, that would mean an average yearly rental increase of $569, a 
32-percent increase which would affect 19,100 public housing families. 
It would mean an average yearly increase of $584, or a 23-percent 
increase for the 5,100 elderly in Illinois.
  It would mean an average yearly increase of $569 or a 19-percent 
increase for 1,100 disabled people. It also would mean an average 
yearly increase of $525, a 57-percent increase for 3,200 other poor 
families. Finally, a $50 increase in the rent means an increase of 
$575, or a 38-percent increase for 9,700 families with children.
  Mr. Chairman, the legacy of this Congress need not be enshrined in a 
nation which has given up on the least among us. I urge my colleagues 
to oppose this legislation if we do not rectify these serious issues 
before us.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller], a member of the 
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity.
  (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I of course want to begin by commending the 
chairman of the subcommittee for his leadership and sincerity to bring 
about changes in bad policy and public housing. I also want to commend 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] the ranking Democrat 
who, as the gentleman from Maryland pointed out, though we sometimes 
disagree, we know he is sincere and appreciate that.
  Mr. Chairman, when we look at public housing today, we want to look 
at it frankly and be honest about who suffers the most in public 
housing today, and that is the little children. It is the children who 
reside in public housing who are the victims of today's current policy.
  Fortunately, under Chairman Lazio's leadership, we have legislation 
now before us which brings about real solutions. I grew up in the 
shadows of the Chicago Housing Authority, growing up in the suburbs in 
a rural area to the southwest of Chicago. On the nightly news we saw 
tragedy after tragedy that occurred as a result of current public 
housing policies.
  Thousands if not millions of dollars bled from the system by 
politicians, lawyers, and consultants. Politicians wanting to keep 
people concentrated for political purposes in certain neighborhoods. 
And, of course, the State street corridor is the best example of a 
problem where we have 10,000 residents, miles long, one block wide, 
living in an area with 99 percent unemployment.
  Mr. Chairman, current public housing policy is a failure. This 
legislation provides real hope and real opportunity to those who are 
living in public housing, opportunities for home ownership, and also 
addresses the issue of section 8, an issue of great concern to the 
south suburbs.
  There is real accountability and, of course, real reform in section 8 
in this bill. One problem we have in the south suburbs is, we have seen 
a concentration of poverty moving from high-rise public housing 
projects to section 8

[[Page H4577]]

residences, where 70 percent of all the section 8 users in Cooke County 
area are in the south suburbs.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not fair to poor people because they do not have 
the opportunity to move up the economic ladder because there are no 
jobs in this area. This legislation directs HUD to come up with a 
solution that Congress can adopt.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation protects senior citizens. Current law 
requires rent equal to 30 percent of income. This bill caps rent at no 
more than 30 percent of income and provides the opportunity for senior 
citizens to see their rent lowered. It is good legislation, it is real 
reform and provides hope and opportunity, looks out for the poor, and 
looks out for taxpayers. It is a good bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, everybody agrees that the government 
cannot do everything. But some of us believe that in a civilized 
society the government, which is all of us, has the responsibility to 
make certain that every American enjoys a minimal level of decency. 
Yes; the government should make certain that no child goes hungry. Yes; 
the government should make certain that all children have access to 
education.
  And yes; relevant to today's debate, the government should make 
certain that all people can live in adequate and decent housing. Yes; 
we should be doing that.
  Mr. Chairman, today throughout this country millions of working 
people are spending 40, 50, 60 percent of their limited incomes on 
housing. That means they have barely enough money to feed their 
families, put aside a few dollars for education or health care needs.
  This legislation would simply add to that problem. There are elderly 
people today living on fixed incomes from Social Security who should 
not be asked to pay 50 or 60 percent of their limited incomes on public 
housing. This legislation would allow that to happen.
  There are millions of working people today who are earning $6 or $7 
an hour. They are trying to improve the lives of their kids. They are 
trying to make it into the middle class. They should not be asked to 
pay 50 or 6 percent of their limited incomes for public housing, which 
is what this legislation would allow to happen.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a housing crisis in America today and this bill 
only takes a step backward.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler], a member of the 
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the manager's 
amendment to H.R. 2406, the U.S. Housing Act of 1996. I would first 
like to thank Chairman Lazio for incorporating this bipartisan measure 
into the bill. I would also like to thank my colleague from Virginia, 
Mr. Moran, for his dedication to this issue.
  After meeting with neighborhood groups in Lansing, MI, and listening 
to their concerns and suggestions, I believe this provision will take 
another step forward in getting criminals out of Federal and federally 
assisted housing.
  This amendment builds on the ``One Strike and You're Out'' proposal 
incorprated into the recently enacted Housing Opportunity Program 
extension law. My amendment extends one strike to residents in 
federally assisted housing, permitting the eviction of tenants from 
Federal housing for criminal activity, including drug dealing and 
violent gang activities, whether the criminal activity is done on or 
off the premises.
  This provision ensures that no activity engaged in by a tenant, 
member of the tenant's household, guest, or other person under the 
tenant's control, threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful 
enjoyment of the premises by other tenants in the immediate vicinity. 
Simply put, my amendment will rightfully kick criminal tenants out of 
Federal housing, safeguarding the livelihood of law-abiding tenants.
  With my amendment, local housing authorities and owners of federally 
assisted housing are given the ability to require each adult member of 
a federally assisted household to provide the owner with written 
authorization to obtain their criminal records. Safeguards have been 
placed in the language to ensure that the information remains 
confidential, not misused or improperly disseminated, and destroyed 
upon completion of the application. We have included civil recourse and 
criminal penalties to be brought upon those who breach these 
agreements.
  Our Federal dollars in housing assistance are too valuable and too 
scarce to go to criminals. The waiting list for housing assistance is 
getting longer and longer. We should not allow criminals the privilege 
of living in taxpayer-funded housing.
  Mr. Chairman, most of these housing communities have playgrounds for 
children to play on, but because of drug dealing and gang violence, 
parents are too scared to allow their children to play outdoors. 
Residents are scared to leave their apartments in fear of getting 
caught in the crossfire. This is no way to live. This amendment, with 
the backing of housing groups and HUD, goes forth in helping to make 
public housing safer. Families living in public housing should be able 
to feel safe in their homes and in their communities.
  This bill accomplishes a great deal in making Federal and federally 
assisted housing a safer, more pleasant place to live. I commend 
Chairman Lazio for all of his hard work on this bill.
  I encourage my colleagues to help make Federal housing and federally 
assisted housing safer by voting ``yes'' on the manager's amendment, 
and voting ``yes'' on final passage of this legislation.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey].
  (Mr. HINCHEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, we heard a few minutes ago a catalog of 
special interest groups who support this legislation. I am much more 
concerned with the people who oppose it. They are the people who are 
affected by public and subsidized housing across this country.
  There will be hundreds of thousands of them that will be affected by 
the provisions of this legislation, particularly that which abandons 
the Brooke amendment and also the basic principle of this legislation, 
which abandons something that has been very basic in our society now 
for almost 50 years: A commitment to decent housing to all Americans, 
no matter what their particular economic circumstances might be at any 
given moment.
  The Brooke amendment specifically capped rents at 30 percent of a 
person's income. The bill as it currently stands abandons that 
principle, although it will be corrected to some extent by the 
manager's amendment, if the manager's amendment is adopted in just a 
few moments. But even if the manager's amendment is adopted, that 
correction, although partial and in response to pleas from the minority 
in this House and in conformance with an amendment that I introduced, 
will not deal with the problems of people who come into subsidized 
housing and public housing subsequently.
  Over the course of the next several years, if this bill is adopted, 
135,000 frail elderly people could be put out of their housing 
circumstances; 17,000 disabled people could be put out of their housing 
circumstances; they will suffer, their families will suffer. The 
children of the frail, elderly, grandparents will suffer and their 
grandchildren will suffer.
  This is, Mr. Chairman, a very poor piece of legislation because it 
turns its back on those among us who are most needy and most deserving, 
people in their golden years who will be put out of the housing 
circumstances that they depend upon to hold their lives together.
  This is a very bad bill. We should defeat this bill and protect that 
which was put here by a Republican Senator, Senator Brooke, passed by a 
Republican Senate, and signed into law by a Republican President, 
President Nixon.
  This is no time to turn our backs upon poor elderly people and people 
who are disabled.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair advise us of the 
time remaining on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] has 6 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] has 4 
minutes remaining.

[[Page H4578]]

  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Let me just correct some misperceptions laying out here on the floor 
with respect to the so-called Brooke amendment, which is a job killer. 
There is a presumption here that, if we maintain the tie between salary 
and rent as a percentage, that that is fine for working people. The 
opposite is true. It is a job killer.
  As long as the Federal Government continues to mandate the one-size-
fits-all rule that every community in the country must follow, so that 
some person who is in an apartment, the day they go to work they 
immediately pay more rent the day they go to work. Now, some people are 
suggesting that we take care of that by making Brooke a ceiling. In 
fact, the ceiling will become a floor, given the financial situation 
that many housing authorities are in right now.
  So people will go, instead of knowing that they have to pay $25 for a 
particular unit, $50 for a particular unit, regardless of whether they 
go to work and make more money, they will do, under the suggestion by 
my friends from the minority, they will go back in time to where we 
were before, which is a disincentive to work, where a person who wants 
to go to work has to pay this additional tax on employment. That is 
what we oppose, Mr. Chairman. That is why we urge adoption and support 
for this bill, which is a prowork, profamily, procommunity bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], the sponsor of the Brooke 
amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I sympathize with the 
gentleman from New York. He had an argument all set to make. There is 
no amendment to make it against. So he is going to make it anyway.
  We agree that requiring housing authorities to set a minimum rent of 
30 percent is a mistake. Let me be fair to a man I voted for a couple 
of times, Ed Brooke. Ed Brooke did not do that. Ronald Reagan did it 
and Gramm-Latta did it. The Brooke amendment was never a floor on 
rents. The Brooke amendment set a cap on rents, 25 percent. Ronald 
Reagan came along and said, no, no, 25 percent is too low; we will make 
it 30 percent, and we will make it both a floor and a ceiling.
  Yes; if you say automatically that, if your income goes up, your rent 
goes up, there is some disincentive. Our amendment does away with that. 
We put a cap on of 30 percent but no minimum. And what does the 
gentleman from New York say? I am astonished that he could not come up 
with a better argument. He says, do not have a cap without a floor. 
Because if you have a cap without a floor, here is what he just said, 
the housing authorities hurting for money will go to the absolute 
limit.
  Well, if in fact the gentleman believes that the housing authorities 
will raise the rents as high as they legally can, he has got the 
problem, because at least in our case they are at a cap of 30 percent. 
The gentleman from New York on the one hand says take the cap off what 
housing authorities can charge working people. And then he says, 
because if you give them a cap, housing authorities will go up to the 
cap.
  So he, astonishingly, argues that, if you put no limit on the housing 
authorities, they will charge people less rent presumably than if you 
limit them to 30 percent. As a matter of fact, it is the gentleman from 
New York's amendment which has an absolute disincentive to work in 
there. His manager's amendment is some manager's amendment. That is a 
manager's amendment that is more comprehensive than most bills. It does 
not say much for the bill they wrote.
  His manager's amendment says, if you are making less than 30 percent 
of the median, then your rent is capped at 30 percent. If you make more 
than 30 percent of the median income, you are subject to no cap. In 
other words, it is under the amendment of the gentleman from New York 
that those who work as opposed to those who are on welfare are legally 
disadvantaged. If you are on welfare and getting 30 percent of the 
median or less, your rent is capped at 30 percent. If you go to work, 
if you go off welfare and you are now making 50 or 60 percent of the 
median income, there is no protective cap.
  So in the gentleman's effort to preserve the right of housing 
authorities to charge more money, he is the one who has created a 
disincentive. Let us be very clear about this. The amendment we will be 
offering will say, no, there is no minimum amount. The gentleman from 
New York says, no, but there will be a ceiling and they will go up to 
the ceiling, and the way to keep them from going up to the ceiling is 
to move the ceiling to the sky. It is illogical.
  Mr. Chairman, let me close by summarizing. As someone has noted, if 
Congress truly wants to remove barriers that discourage public housing 
residents from obtaining employment, the solution is to give housing 
authorities the flexibility to set rents below 30 percent in certain 
instances. Congress should not withhold operating subsidies from public 
housing authorities and try to balance the budget by reaching deeper 
into the pockets of our poorest people.
  That is what Ed Brooke said. That is what Ed Brooke said today. Ed 
Brooke is as right today as a compassionate Republican, the endangered 
species, as he was 30 years ago.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], a member of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, we have to take the context of this bill 
compared to what exists, not the fantasy of what we think exists. We go 
into public housing areas all around the country. They are in 
devastating shape.
  One of the things I find most troubling, the most troubling thing is 
that we have basically warehoused the poorest of the poor in one 
particular area. And all in the name of doing God's work, all in the 
name of good.
  I happen to believe that one of the most serious problems that we 
have in public housing is we do not have firemen and policemen living 
in public housing. We do not have the kind of role models that you used 
to have. And I just hope and pray that others realize there is another 
side to the Brooke amendment, at least the ones that I am most 
interested in.
  I want a family that truly wants to stay in public housing to stay in 
a little longer and not end up paying more than the market rent. Thirty 
percent of income can sometimes be more than what someone would 
logically pay for the kind of facility that they are living in. I want 
kids to be able to say that their next door neighbor may be a fireman 
or a polceman, may have a job, may be somebody that they really look up 
to and aspire to be like.
  And I just hope and pray that in terms of this debate that we do not 
talk about the fantasy world of what we think exists but what truly 
exists.
  I have spent 9 years now in this Chamber investigating the Department 
of HUD, both at the Federal level and on the local level. The area that 
concerns me the most is that we simply have got to have a mixture of 
income, again in public housing.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] has 1 
minute remaining, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] has 2\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Let me close by reiterating that the reason why we oppose this bill 
has nothing to do with the reasons that my friend from Connecticut 
mentioned. Nobody wants to warehouse the poor. Nobody wants to prevent 
the Secretary of any administration from breaking up these large 
monstrosities. Nobody wants to.
  In fact, there are many changes that are contained, and I have 
complimented Mr. Lazio on many of the provisions that are contained in 
this bill that allow the Secretary and allow greater flexibility by 
local housing authorities. That is not what the issue is.
  The issues are two. The issues are, No. 1, the Brooke amendment, 
which in no way can be interpreted as preventing, as Mr. Frank has 
rewritten it, to create some disincentive for work. The existing Brooke 
amendment does create a small disincentive for work, but the kinds of 
protections against the poor and against the elderly and against the 
disabled which are con-

[[Page H4579]]

tained in the Lazio bill end up forcing us to recognize that the only 
people left that we are going to have in public housing whose rents can 
be jacked up are the working poor. The net result of the legislation 
that we are looking at is going to hurt working people more than anyone 
else that is contained in our public protections of the poor.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Nobody wants a situation of a State Street, of a New Orleans or a 
Detroit. I remember getting this small document from the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development about the 40 largest public housing 
authorities, places like Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Detroit, New 
Orleans.
  Mr. Chairman, if your child went to school and came back with the 
grades that these housing authorities have been coming back with for 
not 1 year or 2 years or 5 years but for 17 straight years, you would 
say, we are wasting our money in that school.
  New Orleans scores 27 out of 100, Mr. Chairman, 27. Can you imagine 
if your child came back and said, I got a 27 on my test scores of 17 
years? Atlanta, 49; Pittsburgh 47; Chicago 44 out of 100. What we have 
when we tolerate that failure year after year, when we sink hundreds of 
millions, in many cases billions of taxpayer dollars into housing 
authorities that are chronically mismanaged, chronically troubled and, 
in many cases, corrupt, is to say to Americans in those projects, we do 
not care about you. We do not care about the people living in that 
housing authority.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. Chairman, we would rather protect the bureaucracy, we would 
rather ignore the reality, we would rather say that politics is better 
keeping it just the way it is so we can get past one last election.
  This bill rejects that, Mr. Chairman. It is time that this body 
rejects that same mentality. We are saying that work ethic is 
important. We are saying, remove these disincentives to work. The 
Brooke amendment, Mr. Chairman, is a job killer. People do not want to 
pay 30 percent of their income in rent. They do not want to have a tax 
on employment. They want to have rent that is place-based. They want to 
be able to know when they go to a place that that rent is $15 a month, 
or $20 a month, or $25 a month regardless of whether they get a job, 
regardless of whether they have overtime and they make extra money, so 
that they do not get that penalty because one bureaucrat in Washington 
feels that one size fits all and everybody ought to be living under 
that same rule.
  This bill begins the process of communities deciding their own fate. 
And what is wrong with that? What is extreme about that? Is it extreme, 
Mr. Chairman, to give people the ability to use vouchers for home 
ownership so that poor people can make their own choices? Is it extreme 
to allow people in public housing developments to pull together and 
encourage entrepreneurship by allowing them to sell some of their 
services to residents in the area? I think not, Mr. Chairman.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, anytime there is legislation 
underfoot affecting housing, it gets my attention. The U.S. Housing Act 
(H.R. 2406) block grants Federal funding for public housing and low 
income rental assistance. The bill repeals the Housing Act of 1937; 
eliminated caps on rent paid by seniors and working families; and 
eliminates targeted housing assistance.
  The bill repeals the Brooke amendment which caps rent for tenants in 
public and assisted housing at 30 percent of income. Mr. Speaker, 41 
percent of residents in public and assisted housing are seniors or are 
disabled, and the remainder are working families with children. We are 
talking about severe impacts upon poor, hard working families who are 
already paying too great of a percentage of their meager incomes for 
rent.
  Repeal of the Brooke amendment will force tenants in public housing--
whose income averages only $6,400 per year--to choose between shelter 
and food, medicine and clothing, and could lead to greater 
homelessness. In my district, the Seventh District of Chicago, this is 
the last thing we need.
  It is extremely important to me to provide more residents of the 
Sevenh District with the social and economic opportunities and 
incentives that will help strengthen all our neighborhoods and 
communities.
  It is of great concern to me that the needs and concerns of the 
residents of Chicago Housing Authority developments are attended to by 
HUD and by the Congress. I intend to work long and hard to facilitate 
effective communication among all parties involved in this important 
endeavor to make certain that they fully understand one another's 
views.
  To this end, I strongly support public housing enhancements. Not a 
kick in the teeth. I encourage my colleagues to show a strong 
commitment to fundamental renewal of our Nation's public housing 
developments shown by both President Clinton and the Secretary of the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD], Henry Cisneros.
  However, I am troubled that this same commitment is not embraced by 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Instead, this bill smacks 
of negative, mean-spirited, insensitive determination to deny our 
Nation's neediest citizens, decent affordable public housing.
  In clear, plain English, let me state unequivocally that this Member 
of Congress, representing all citizens in the Seventh District, that I 
shall standfast in my determination to fight all efforts in the 
Congress to decimate affordable public housing in the United States, 
and I will continue working with my colleagues to protect the interests 
of the undeserved in this regard.
  It is outrageous that any Member of Congress would support attempts 
to balance the Federal budget on the very poorest Americans. I ask my 
colleagues to defeat H.R. 2406.
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong 
support of H.R. 2406, the United States Housing Act of 1996. Let me 
take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Lazio on his innovative 
effort to bring much needed reform to America's byzantine public 
housing laws.
  For too long, America's public housing residents have been forced to 
live under a cumbersome system of rules that often fail to improve 
their living standards or provide a better quality of life. Indeed, 
many of America's public housing developments are rampant with crime 
and unsafe for residents.
  One of the results of this arcane system is that tenants are not 
adequately represented on many large public housing authorities. In 
fact, much of the public housing management throughout the country has 
no tenant representation. Instead, these positions are often doled out 
as political patronage positions, which further thwart the 
accountability of these boards.
  In an effort to remediate this chronic problem, I have worked closely 
with Housing Subcommittee Chairman Rick Lazio to develop a legislative 
proposal which ensures elected resident participation on public housing 
boards.
  My tenant empowerment provision forces these boards to be accountable 
to its residents by enabling, for the first time, at least one tenant 
to be democratically elected to any large local housing and management 
board.
  In order to ensure that public housing tenants are represented by 
responsible individuals, my legislation establishes strict 
qualifications for residents to be eligible to be elected to local 
housing and management authorities. First, elected residents must 
maintain their principal residence in a governed housing authority. 
Second, they cannot have been convicted of any felony, and they cannot 
reside in a house in which a convicted felon lives. Finally, eligible 
individuals cannot have been convicted of a misdemeanor within 5 years 
of the date of a public housing residents election.
  To further ensure responsible governance of public housing by local 
housing management authorities, my legislation requires the Secretary 
of Housing and Urban Development to develop guidelines which would 
prevent conflicts of interest on the part of members of the board of 
directors. Until board members are recused from decisions which may 
otherwise create a conflict of interest, tenants will never be fairly 
represented on the authorities.
  I am confident that the provisions I have worked to secure, along 
with the others found in H.R. 2406, will improve the living conditions 
in many of today's public housing developments.
  If you believe that America's public housing authorities should be 
more accountable to the very tenants they exist to serve, I urge all 
Members to vote ``aye'' on the manager's amendment and ``aye'' on final 
passage of H.R. 2406.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this housing bill, 
which would force thousands of Americans out on the street. This bill 
signals the end to our Nation's commitment to providing housing 
security for those in our communities, who are most in need. But now, 
all of that is changing under the Republican leadership. This 
leadership would rather put an end to housing security for our most 
vulnerable. They would rather see these Americans, the elderly, 
families, and children, out on the streets, in the subways, in the

[[Page H4580]]

parks, homeless. Big tax cuts for their wealthy friends are fine, but 
ensuring affordable housing for the working poor is something our 
colleagues on the other side just can't abide.
  This bill repeals the Brooke amendment. The Brooke amendment, for the 
past 25 years, has ensured that low-income families would have to pay 
no more than 30 percent of their income on rent. This bill also 
eliminates income targeting, which provides that the poorest Americans 
are ensured housing assistance and are afforded decent housing along 
with those of moderate income levels. Without this protection the 
poorest Americans could be segregated away from healthy mixed income 
neighborhoods where opportunities for advancement are greater. This 
bill reneges on our Nation's promise that Americans who are most in 
need of housing assistance can afford to receive it.
  These protections have provided a critical safety net for those in 
desperate need and have saved so many from homelessness and 
destitution.
  Mr. Chairman, even with the current protections of the Brooke 
amendment homelessness and unacceptable living conditions continue to 
plague America. There are more than 5 million American renter 
households, not including the homeless, who have worst case housing 
needs, paying more than half of their income for rent, living in 
substandard housing, or in the most unfortunate cases, both.
  This problem afflicts the elderly, working poor families, and others 
who strive to make ends meet on the minimum wage--a minimum wage, if I 
might add, which has not kept up with inflation, and has not been 
raised since 1991, because of staunch Republican opposition.
  Securing safe, affordable housing for those who remain poor despite 
hard work, for children or for those who might be unable to make a 
living on their own due to health or other reasons, is crucial to the 
positive development of today's youth and families, the safety and 
well-being of our elderly, and for our Nation's communities as a whole.
  I have many constituents who have contacted me about their fears of 
what this bill could mean to them. One constituent, who happens to be a 
quadriplegic, informed me that should the Brooke amendment be repealed, 
he surely would be out on the street, and I am further saddened to say 
that there are many more who would be put in the same situation.
  We need to ensure that affordable housing remains available. It is 
the right thing to do and it is the smart thing to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of this very damaging bill.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank 
Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts for allowing me the opportunity to speak 
on this most important issue. In listening to the debate on this issue, 
it is clear to me that my colleagues in the majority truly believe in 
their views on this issue. To some extent, I would agree with the 
spirit of their views but not with the methods. In our efforts to 
reform public housing we must be careful not to hurt the very people 
that we are trying to help, the residents of public housing.
  Under current law, the Brooke amendment was enacted in 1969 to 
protect the most vulnerable residents of public housing from paying too 
high a percentage of their income for rent. The amendment made public 
and assisted housing affordable for very low-income families. 
Typically, poor families who are not in public housing pay more than 30 
percent of their income in rent. Currently, more than 5.3 million 
families, who are not in public or assisted housing pay more than 50 
percent of their income for rent. The limits set by the Brooke 
amendment have made public and assisted housing more affordable for 
very low-income families by preventing dramatic increases in rent.
  Current law also addresses the earned income adjustments that allow 
public housing authorities to encourage work through more flexible rent 
structures. Further, rent ceilings allow public housing authorities to 
price units competitively with the market and allow retention for mixed 
occupancy. The Brooke amendment is a good amendment. It is sound public 
policy.
  But let's talk turkey. H.R. 2406 repeals the Brooke amendment and 
hurts the people we are trying to help, by removing the limits placed 
on rent charges. This is dichotomous at best. We are going to remove 
the caps on rent and in the same breath deny them an increase in the 
minimum wage. That equates to a back hand and a forehand slap to the 
faces of the residents of public housing. I hear some of my colleagues 
say that they value home ownership and that residents of public housing 
will be allowed to purchase their units. Tell me: How will those 
residents be able to afford the mortgages on those units without being 
able to earn a decent livable wage.

  Let's talk about this managers amendment. It seems to me that this 
amendment undermines itself. While it attempts to maintain the spirit 
of the Brooke amendment, it seeks to deregulate 300 of the best 
performing local housing authorities over the next 3 years, for which 
the rent is capped and resident targeting would no longer apply. That 
provision would severely impact my constituency. I have nine, count 
them, nine public housing projects in my district. Ujima Village in the 
city of Compton happens to be one of the best run housing complexes 
this Congresswoman has ever seen. To blanketly deregulate a housing 
authority for performing well is poor public policy. Mr. Watt's 
amendment is good public policy, Mr. Kennedy's amendment is good public 
policy. This bill removes the goal of providing decent affordable 
housing for our working poor. I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
manager's amendment and oppose this draconian, extreme bill.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concern 
about what I see this bill is being used for. It has become a vehicle 
for a major amendment to the Federal Property and Administrative 
Services Act of 1949. This act is within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, of which I am the ranking 
minority member.
  That amendment, as section 506, is designed to modify title V of the 
Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. Title V allows homeless 
assistance providers a priority of consideration in applying to obtain 
Federal surplus property for the homeless. And title V, too, is part of 
the legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight. Moreover, as chair of the Government Activities and 
Transportation Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations I 
was a principal author of title V.
  Mr. Chairman, the provision, which will be offered as part of the 
managers' amendment to H.R. 2406 was drafted without prior consultation 
with GSA or the Department of Health and Human Services, which 
administer property use for the homeless. Nor was there prior 
consultation with the majority or minority staff of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight.
  The result, Mr. Chairman, is that we will be dealing today with 
language that not only contains major ambiguities, loopholes, and 
omissions, but will reduce to arbitrary fractions the amount of vacant 
Federal property that GSA may transfer and still realize compliance 
with title V of McKinney.
  We must ask, for example, why the language does not provide for input 
from the Departments of Housing and Urban Development of Health and 
Human Services. In other public-purpose transfer provisions of the 
Federal Property Act, review and approval of proposals by other 
affected agencies, such as Interior, Health and Human Services or 
Treasury, are required.
  We must ask why nonprofit organizations are the only entities 
eligible for property under proposal? Surely local government entities 
with responsibilities for housing and the homeless should be able to 
become transferees, too.
  Finally, we must anticipate that GSA may exercise its broad authority 
under this amendment by taking all surplus land out of title V 
availability while seeking a substitute transfer in the form of one of 
the amendment's alternatives.
  Mr. Chairman, if this provision becomes part of the House-passed 
bill, I intend to take every opportunity I can to assure that both the 
substantive and technical deficiencies of this provision are carefully 
and fairly addressed by the committee of conference.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered under the 5-minute 
rule by titles, and the first two sections and each title shall be 
considered read.
  Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to 
consider the amendment printed in the designated place in the 
Congressional Record of May 7, 1996, if offered by the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Lazio] or his designee. That amendment shall be 
considered read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.
  If that amendment is adopted, the bill, as amended, shall be 
considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered as read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time 
during further consideration in the

[[Page H4581]]

Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment 
and may reduce to not less than 5 minutes the time for voting by 
electronic device on any postponed question that immediately follows 
another vote by electronic device without intervening business, 
provided that the time for voting by electronic device on the first in 
any series of questions shall not be less than 15 minutes.


               amendment offered by mr. lazio of new york

  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Lazio of New York:
       Page 7, lines 9 and 10, strike ``and become self-
     sufficient; and'' and insert the following: ``, become self-
     sufficient, and transition out of public housing and 
     federally assisted dwelling units;''.
       Page 7, line 15, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 7, after line 15, insert the following:
       (7) remedying troubled local housing and management 
     authorities and replacing or revitalizing severely distressed 
     public housing developments.
       Page 10, line 23, after the comma insert ``as determined by 
     the Secretary with adjustments for smaller and larger 
     families,''.
       Page 13, line 7, after the comma insert ``as determined by 
     the Secretary with adjustments for smaller and larger 
     families,''.
       Page 14, line 3, strike ``or''.
       Page 14, strike line 4 and insert the following:
       (C) an entity authorized by State law to administer choice-
     based housing assistance under title III; or
       (D) an entity selected by the Secretary, pur-
       Page 14, strike line 23 and all that follows through page 
     15, line 5, and insert the following:
     ber who is an elected public housing resident member (as such 
     term is defined in paragraph (5)). If the board includes 2 or 
     more resident members, at least 1 such member shall be a 
     member of an assisted family under title III.
       Page 15, line 7, strike ``a resident member'' and insert 
     ``elected public housing resident members and resident 
     members''
       Page 16, strike lines 3 through 6.
       Page 16, line 7, strike ``(iv)'' and insert ``(iii)''.
       Page 16, line 13, strike ``(v)'' and insert ``(iv)''.
       Page 17, strike lines 4 through 10, and insert the 
     following new paragraph:
       (5) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       (A) Elected public housing resident member.--The term 
     ``elected public housing resident member'' means, with 
     respect to the local housing and management authority 
     involved, an individual who is a resident member of the board 
     of directors (or other similar governing body of the 
     authority) by reason of election to such position pursuant to 
     an election--
       (i) in which eligibility for candidacy in such election is 
     limited to individuals who--

       (I) maintain their principal residence in a dwelling unit 
     of public housing administered or assisted by the authority;
       (II) have not been convicted of a felony and do not reside 
     in a household that includes an individual convicted of a 
     felony; and
       (III) have not, during the 5-year period ending upon the 
     date of such election, been convicted of a misdemeanor;

       (ii) in which only residents of dwelling units of public 
     housing administered by the authority may vote; and
       (iii) that is conducted in accordance with standards and 
     procedures for such election, which shall be established by 
     the Secretary.
       (B) Resident member.--The term ``resident member'' means a 
     member of the board of directors or other similar governing 
     body of a local housing and management authority who is a 
     resident of a public housing dwelling unit owned, 
     administered, or assisted by the authority or is a member of 
     an assisted family (as such term is defined in section 371) 
     assisted by the authority.
       Page 17, line 18, insert ``AND MEDIAN INCOME'' before the 
     last period.
       Page 17, line 19, strike ``In General'' and insert 
     ``Adjusted Income''.
       Page 19, line 1, after ``Minors'' insert ``, students, and 
     persons with disabilities''.
       Page 19, line 5, before the period insert the following: 
     ``, or who is 18 years of age or older and is a person with 
     disabilities''.
       Page 20, after line 10, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (d) Median Income.--In determining median incomes (of 
     persons, families, or households) for an area or establishing 
     any ceilings or limits based on income under this Act, the 
     Secretary shall determine or establish area median incomes 
     and income ceilings and limits for Westchester and Rockland 
     Counties, in the State of New York, as if each such county 
     were an area not contained within the metropolitan 
     statistical area in which it is located. In determining such 
     area median incomes or establishing such income ceilings or 
     limits for the portion of such metropolitan statistical area 
     that does not include Westchester or Rockland Counties, the 
     Secretary shall determine or establish area median incomes 
     and income ceilings and limits as if such portion included 
     Westchester and Rockland Counties.
       Page 20, strike line 11 and all that follows through page 
     21, line 22, and insert the following new section:

     SEC. 105. OCCUPANCY LIMITATIONS BASED ON ILLEGAL DRUG 
                   ACTIVITY AND ALCOHOL ABUSE.

       (a) Ineligibility Because of Eviction for Drug-Related 
     Criminal Activity.--Any tenant evicted from housing assisted 
     under title II or title III by reason of drug-related 
     criminal activity (as such term is defined in section 102) 
     shall not be eligible for any housing assistance under title 
     II or title III during the 3-year period beginning on the 
     date of such eviction, unless the evicted tenant successfully 
     completes a rehabilitation program approved by the local 
     housing and management authority (which shall include a 
     waiver of this subsection if the circumstances leading to 
     eviction no longer exist).
       (b) Ineligibility of Illegal Drug Users and Alcohol 
     Abusers.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a local housing and management authority shall establish 
     standards for occupancy in public housing dwelling units and 
     housing assistance under title II--
       (A) that prohibit occupancy in any public housing dwelling 
     unit by, and housing assistance under title II for, any 
     person--
       (i) who the local housing and management authority 
     determines is illegally using a controlled substance; or
       (ii) if the local housing and management authority 
     determines that it has reasonable cause to believe that such 
     person's illegal use (or pattern of illegal use) of a 
     controlled substance, or abuse (or pattern of abuse) of 
     alcohol, may interfere with the health, safety, or right to 
     peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents of the 
     project; and
       (B) that allow the local housing and management authority 
     to terminate the tenancy in any public housing unit of, and 
     the housing assistance under title II for, any person--
       (i) who the local housing and management authority 
     determines is illegally using a controlled substance; or
       (ii) whose illegal use of a controlled substance, or whose 
     abuse of alcohol, is determined by the local housing and 
     management authority to interfere with the health, safety, or 
     right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other 
     residents of the project.
       (2) Consideration of rehabilitation.--In determining 
     whether, pursuant to paragraph (1), to deny occupancy or 
     assistance to any person based on a pattern of use of a 
     controlled substance or a pattern of abuse of alcohol, a 
     local housing and management authority may consider whether 
     such person--
       (A) has successfully completed a supervised drug or alcohol 
     rehabilitation program (as applicable) and is no longer 
     engaging in the illegal use of a controlled substance or 
     abuse of alcohol (as applicable);
       (B) has otherwise been rehabilitated successfully and is no 
     longer engaging in the illegal use of a controlled substance 
     or abuse of alcohol (as applicable); or
       (C) is participating in a supervised drug or alcohol 
     rehabilitation program (as applicable) and is no longer 
     engaging in the illegal use of a controlled substance or 
     abuse of alcohol (as applicable).
       (c) Other Screening.--A local housing and management 
     authority may deny occupancy as provided in section 642 of 
     the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992.
       Page 22, line 4, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
       Page 22, strike line 8 and all that follows through line 
     13, and insert the following:

     member of the family shall contribute not less than 8 hours 
     of work per month within the community in which the family 
     resides. The requirement under this subsection shall be 
     incorporated in the terms of the tenant self-sufficiency 
     contract under subsection (b).
       (b) Tenant Self-Sufficiency Contract.--
       (1) Requirement.--Except as provided in subsection (c), 
     each local housing and management authority shall require, as 
     a condition of occupancy of a public housing dwelling unit by 
     a family and of providing housing assistance under title III 
     on behalf of a family, that each adult member of the family 
     who has custody of, or is responsible for, a minor living in 
     his or her care shall enter into a legally enforceable self-
     sufficiency contract under this section with the authority.
       (2) Contract terms.--The terms of a self-sufficiency 
     contract under this subsection shall be established pursuant 
     to consultation between the authority and the family and 
     shall include a plan for the resident's or family's residency 
     in housing assisted under this Act that provides--
       (A) a date specific by which the resident or family will 
     graduate from or terminate tenancy in such housing;
       (B) specific interim and final performance targets and 
     deadlines relating to self-sufficiency, which may relate to 
     education, school participation, substance and alcohol abuse 
     counseling, mental health support, jobs and skills training, 
     and any other factors the authority considers appropriate; 
     and
       (C) any resources, services, and assistance relating to 
     self-sufficiency to be made available to the resident or 
     family.

[[Page H4582]]

       (3) Incorporation into lease.--A self-sufficiency contract 
     under this subsection shall be incorporated by reference into 
     a lease under section 226 or 324, as applicable, and the 
     terms of such contract shall be terms of the lease for which 
     violation may result in--
       (A) termination of tenancy, pursuant to section 226(4) or 
     325(a)(1), as applicable; or
       (B) withholding of assistance under this Act.

     The contract shall provide that the local housing and 
     management authority or the resident who is a party to the 
     contract may enforce the contract through an administrative 
     grievance procedure under section 110.
       (4) Partnerships for self-sufficiency activities.--A local 
     housing and management authority may enter into such 
     agreements and form such partnerships as may be necessary, 
     with State and local agencies, nonprofit organizations, 
     academic institutions, and other entities who have experience 
     or expertise in providing services, activities, training, and 
     other assistance designed to facilitate low- and very-low 
     income families achieving self-sufficiency.
       (5) Changed circumstances.--A self-sufficiency contract 
     under this subsection shall provide for modification in 
     writing and that the local housing and management authority 
     may for good cause or changed circumstances waive conditions 
     under the contract.
       (6) Model contracts.--The Secretary shall, in consultation 
     with organizations and groups representing resident councils 
     and residents of housing assisted under this Act, develop a 
     model self-sufficiency contract for use under this 
     subsection. The Secretary shall provide local housing and 
     management authorities with technical assistance and advice 
     regarding such contracts.
       Page 22, line 16, strike ``requirement under subsection 
     (a)'' and insert ``requirements under subsections (a) and 
     (b)(1)''.
       Page 27, lines 19 and 20, strike ``section 110'' and insert 
     ``section 111''.
       Page 29, line 18, after ''welfare'' insert ``and other 
     appropriate''.
       Page 29, line 20, after ``welfare agencies'' insert the 
     following: ``and other appropriate Federal, State, or local 
     government agencies or nongovernment agencies or entities''.
       Page 29, line 25, strike ``requirements'' and all that 
     follows through ``ensure'' on page 30, line 1, and insert the 
     following: ``policies established by the authority that 
     increase or maintain''.
       Page 30, line 7, strike ``local law'' and insert the 
     following: ``Federal, State, and local law''.
       Page 34, line 8, strike ``or''.
       Page 30, after line 8, insert the following new paragraph:
       (13) Policies for loss of housing assistance.--A 
     description of policies of the authority requiring the loss 
     of housing assistance and tenancy under titles II and III, 
     pursuant to sections 222(e) and 321(g).
       Page 34, line 12, strike the period and insert a semicolon.
       Page 34, after line 12, insert the following new 
     paragraphs:
       (4) the plan plainly fails to adequately identify the needs 
     of low-income families for housing assistance in the 
     jurisdiction of the authority;
       (5) the plan plainly fails to adequately identify the 
     capital improvement needs for public housing developments in 
     the jurisdiction of the authority;
       (6) the activities identified in the plan are plainly 
     inappropriate to address the needs identified in the plan; or
       (7) the plan is inconsistent with the requirements of this 
     Act.
       Page 36, line 24, after the semicolon insert ``or''.
       Page 37, after line 17, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 109. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Performance and Evaluation Report.--Each local housing 
     and management authority shall annually submit to the 
     Accreditation Board established under section 401, on a date 
     determined by such Board, a performance and evaluation report 
     concerning the use of funds made available under this Act. 
     The report of the local housing and management authority 
     shall include an assessment by the authority of the 
     relationship of such use of funds made available under this 
     Act, as well as the use of other funds, to the needs 
     identified in the local housing management plan and to the 
     purposes of this Act. The local housing and management 
     authority shall certify that the report was available for 
     review and comment by affected tenants prior to its 
     submission to the Board.
       (b) Review of LHMA's.--The Accreditation Board established 
     under section 401 shall, at least on an annual basis, make 
     such reviews as may be necessary or appropriate to determine 
     whether each local housing and management authority receiving 
     assistance under this section--
       (1) has carried out its activities under this Act in a 
     timely manner and in accordance with its local housing 
     management plan;
       (2) has a continuing capacity to carry out its local 
     housing management plan in a timely manner; and
       (3) has satisfied, or has made reasonable progress towards 
     satisfying, such performance standards as shall be prescribed 
     by the Board.
       (c) Records.--Each local housing and management authority 
     shall collect, maintain, and submit to the Accreditation 
     Board established under section 401 such data and other 
     program records as the Board may require, in such form and in 
     accordance with such schedule as the Board may establish.
       Page 37, line 18, strike ``SEC. 109.'' and insert ``SEC. 
     110.''.
       Page 38, line 6, strike ``SEC. 110.'' and insert ``SEC. 
     111.''.
       Page 38, lines 10 and 11, strike ``and assisted families 
     under title III''.
       Page 38, line 16, after ``impartial party'' insert 
     ``(including appropriate employees of the local housing and 
     management authority)''.
       Page 39, strike lines 13 through 17 and insert the 
     following new subsection:
       (c) Inapplicability to Choice-Based Rental Housing 
     Assistance.--This section may not be construed to require any 
     local housing and management authority to establish or 
     implement an administrative grievance procedure with respect 
     to assisted families under title III.
       Page 39, line 18, strike ``SEC. 111.'' and insert ``SEC. 
     112.''.
       Page 40, line 18, strike ``SEC. 112.'' and insert ``SEC. 
     113.''.
       Page 39, lines 22 and 23, strike ``to provide incremental 
     housing assistance under title III'' and insert ``for use''.
       Page 40, line 2, after ``subsection (a)'' insert ``or 
     appropriated or otherwise made available for use under this 
     section''.
       Page 40, strike lines 12 through 17 and insert the 
     following:
       (4) providing technical assistance, training, and 
     electronic information systems for the Department of Housing 
     and Urban Development, local housing and management 
     authorities, residents, resident councils, and resident 
     management corporations to improve management of such 
     authorities, except that the provision of assistance under 
     this paragraph may not involve expenditure of amounts 
     retained under subsection (a) for travel;
       (5)(A) providing technical assistance, directly or 
     indirectly, for local housing and management authorities, 
     residents, resident councils, resident management 
     corporations, and nonprofit and other entities in connection 
     with implementation of a homeownership program under section 
     251, except that grants under this paragraph may not exceed 
     $100,000; and (B) establishing a public housing homeownership 
     program data base; and
       (6) needs related to the Secretary's actions regarding 
     troubled local housing and management authorities under this 
     Act.

     Housing needs under this subsection may be met through the 
     provision of assistance in accordance with title II or title 
     III, or both.
       Page 42, line 4, after ``who'' insert ``(A)''.
       Page 42, line 6, strike ``and'' and insert a comma.
       Page 42, line 7, strike ``or production''.
       Page 42, line 8, before the period insert the following: 
     ``, and (C) is not a member of a bargaining unit represented 
     by a union that has a collective bargaining agreement with 
     the local housing and management authority''.
       Page 42, after line 8, insert the following:
       (3) Residents in training programs.--Any individuals 
     participating in a job training program or other program 
     designed to promote economic self-sufficiency.
       (c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the terms 
     ``operation'' and ``production'' have the meanings given the 
     term in section 273.
       Page 42, line 9, strike ``SEC. 113.'' and insert ``SEC. 
     114.''.
       Page 43, after line 4, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 114. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS.

       None of the funds made available to the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development to carry out this Act, which 
     are obligated to State or local governments, local housing 
     and management authorities, housing finance agencies, or 
     other public or quasi-public housing agencies, shall be used 
     to indemnify contractors or subcontractors of the government 
     or agency against costs associated with judgments of 
     infringement of intellectual property rights.
       Page 43, line 5, strike ``SEC. 114.'' and insert ``SEC. 
     115.''.
       Page 45, strike line 22 and insert the following:

     SEC. 202. GRANT AUTHORITY, AMOUNT, AND ELIGIBILITY.

       Page 46, after line 2, insert the following new subsection:
       (b) Performance Funds.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish 2 funds for 
     the provision of grants to eligible local housing and 
     management authorities under this title, as follows:
       (A) Capital fund.--A capital fund to provide capital and 
     management improvements to public housing developments.
       (B) Operating fund.--An operating fund for public housing 
     operations.
       (2) Flexibility of funding.--A local housing and management 
     authority may use up to 10 percent of the amounts from a 
     grant under this title that are allocated and provided from 
     the capital fund for activities that are eligible under 
     section 203(a)(2) to be funded with amounts from the 
     operating fund.
       (c) Amount of Grants.--The amount of the grant under this 
     title for a local housing and management authority for a 
     fiscal year shall be the amount of the allocation for the 
     authority determined under section 204, except as otherwise 
     provided in this title and subtitle B of title IV.
       Page 46, line 3, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(d)''.
       Page 46, line 19, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.

[[Page H4583]]

       Page 47, line 3, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.
       Page 47, strike lines 7 through 11.
       Page 47, line 12, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
       Page 48, line 22, strike ``not''.
       Page 49, line 12, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.
       Page 49, line 20, strike ``(f)'' and insert ``(g)''.
       Page 50, strike line 4 and all that follows through page 
     54, line 5, and insert the following new subsection:
       (a) Eligible Activities.--Except as provided in subsection 
     (b) and in section 202(b)(2), grant amounts allocated and 
     provided from the capital fund and grant amounts allocated 
     and provided from the operating fund may only be used only 
     for the following activities:
       (1) Capital Fund Activities.--Grant amounts from the 
     capital fund may be used for--
       (A) the production and modernization of public housing 
     developments, including the redesign, reconstruction, and 
     reconfiguration of public housing sites and buildings and the 
     production of mixed-income developments;
       (B) vacancy reduction;
       (C) addressing deferred maintenance needs and the 
     replacement of dwelling equipment;
       (D) planned code compliance;
       (E) management improvements;
       (F) demolition and replacement under section 261;
       (G) tenant relocation;
       (H) capital expenditures to facilitate programs to improve 
     the economic empowerment and self-sufficiency of public 
     housing tenants; and
       (I) capital expenditures to improve the security and safety 
     of residents.
       (2) Operating Fund Activities.--Grant amounts from the 
     operating fund may be used for--
       (A) procedures and systems to maintain and ensure the 
     efficient management and operation of public housing units;
       (B) activities to ensure a program of routine preventative 
     maintenance;
       (C) anti-crime and anti-drug activities, including the 
     costs of providing adequate security for public housing 
     tenants;
       (D) activities related to the provision of services, 
     including service coordinators for elderly persons or persons 
     with disabilities;
       (E) activities to provide for management and participation 
     in the management of public housing by public housing 
     tenants;
       (F) the costs associated with the operation and management 
     of mixed-income developments;
       (G) the costs of insurance;
       (H) the energy costs associated with public housing units, 
     with an emphasis on energy conservation;
       (I) the costs of administering a public housing work 
     program under section 106, including the costs of any related 
     insurance needs; and
       (J) activities in connection with a homeownership program 
     for public housing residents under subtitle D, including 
     providing financing or assistance for purchasing housing, or 
     the provision of financial assistance to resident management 
     corporations or resident councils to obtain training, 
     technical assistance, and educational assistance to promote 
     homeownership opportunities.
       Page 54, line 11, after ``title III'' insert a comma.
       Page 54, strike lines 16 through 25 and insert the 
     following:

     sufficient evidence to the Secretary that the building or 
     buildings--
       (A) are on the same or contiguous sites;
       (B) consist of more than 300 dwelling units;
       (C) have a vacancy rate of at least 10 percent for dwelling 
     units not in funded, on-schedule modernization programs;
       (D) are identified as distressed housing for which the 
     local housing and management authority cannot assure the 
     long-term viability as public housing through reasonable 
     revitalization, density reduction, or achievement of a 
     broader range of household income; and
       (E) have an estimate cost of continued operation and 
     modernization as public housing that exceeds the cost of 
     providing choice-based rental assistance under title III for 
     all families in occupancy, based on appropriate indicators of 
     cost (such as the percentage of the total development cost 
     required for modernization).

     Local housing and management agencies shall identify 
     properties that meet the definition of subparagraphs (A) 
     through (E).
       Page 55, line 3, strike ``formula'' and insert 
     ``formulas''.
       Page 55, line 6, strike ``incremental''.
       Page 55, strike line 7 and all that follows through 
     ``assistance'' on line 10.
       Page 56, line 14, after ``and'' insert ``take''.
       Page 58, line 10, strike ``formula'' and insert 
     ``formulas''.
       Page 58, line 12, strike ``formula'' and insert 
     ``formulas''.
       Page 58, strike line 15 and all that follows through line 
     22, and insert the following new subsection:
       (c) Extension of Deadlines.--The Secretary may, for a local 
     housing and management authority, extend any deadline 
     established pursuant to this section or a local housing 
     management plan for up to an additional 5 years if the 
     Secretary makes a determination that the deadline is 
     impracticable.
       Page 59, line 11, strike ``BLOCK''.
       Page 59, line 13, strike ``section 111'' and insert 
     ``section 112''.
       Page 59, line 24, strike ``a formula described in'' and 
     insert ``the formulas described in paragraphs (1) and (2) 
     of''.;
       Page 60, lines 1 and 2, strike ``formula'' and insert 
     ``formulas''.
       Page 60, strike line 10 and all that follows through line 
     23 and insert the following:
       (c) Permanent Allocation Formulas for Capital and Operating 
     Funds.--
       (1) Establishment of Capital Fund Formula.--The formula 
     under this paragraph shall provide for allocating assistance 
     under the capital fund for a fiscal year. The formula may 
     take into account such factors as--
       (A) the number of public housing dwelling units owned or 
     operated by the local housing and management authority, the 
     characteristics and locations of the developments, and the 
     characteristics of the families served and to be served 
     (including the incomes of the families);
       (B) the need of the local housing and management authority 
     to carry out rehabilitation and modernization activities, and 
     reconstruction, production, and demolition activities related 
     to public housing dwelling units owned or operated by the 
     local housing and management authority, including backlog and 
     projected future needs of the authority;
       (C) the cost of constructing and rehabilitating property in 
     the area; and
       (D) the need of the local housing and management authority 
     to carry out activities that provide a safe and secure 
     environment in public housing units owned or operated by the 
     local housing and management authority.
       (2) Establishment of Operating Fund Formula.--The formula 
     under this paragraph shall provide for allocating assistance 
     under the operating fund for a fiscal year. The formula may 
     take into account such factors as--
       (A) standards for the costs of operating and reasonable 
     projections of income, taking into account the 
     characteristics and locations of the public housing 
     developments and characteristics of the families served and 
     to be served (including the incomes of the families), or the 
     costs of providing comparable services as determined in 
     accordance with criteria or a formula representing the 
     operations of a prototype well-managed public housing 
     development;
       (B) the number of public housing dwelling units owned or 
     operated by the local housing and management authority; and
       (C) the need of the local housing and management authority 
     to carry out anti-crime and anti-drug activities, including 
     providing adequate security for public housing residents.
       Page 60, line 24, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       Page 60, line 25, strike ``formula'', and insert 
     ``formulas''.
       Page 61, line 4, strike ``formula'', and insert 
     ``formulas''.
       Page 61, line 6, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''.
       Page 61, line 9, strike ``formula'', and insert 
     ``formulas''.
       Page 61, line 10, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       Page 62, line 10, after ``costs'' insert the following: 
     ``and other necessary costs (such as costs necessary for the 
     protection of persons and property)''.
       Page 62, after line 16, insert the following new 
     subparagraph:
       (D) Increases in income.--The Secretary may revise the 
     formula referred to in subparagraph (B) to provide an 
     incentive to encourage local housing and management 
     authorities to increase nonrental income and to increase 
     rental income attributable to their units by encouraging 
     occupancy by families with a broad range of incomes, 
     including families whose incomes have increased while in 
     occupancy and newly admitted families. Any such incentive 
     shall provide that the local housing and management authority 
     shall derive the full benefit of an increase in nonrental 
     income, and such increase shall not directly result in a 
     decrease in amounts provided to the authority under this 
     title.
       Page 63, after line 13, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (e) Eligibility of Units Acquired From Proceeds of Sales 
     Under Demolition or Disposition Plan.--If a local housing and 
     management authority uses proceeds from the sale of units 
     under a homeownership program in accordance with section 251 
     to acquire additional units to be sold to low-income 
     families, the additional units shall be counted as public 
     housing for purposes of determining the amount of the 
     allocation to the authority under this section until sale by 
     the authority, but in any case no longer than 5 years.
       Page 69, line 21, strike ``25 percent'' and insert ``30 
     percent''.
       Page 69, line 23, strike the period insert the following: 
     ``, as determined by the Secretary with adjustments for 
     smaller and larger families. The Secretary may establish 
     income ceiling higher or lower than 30 percent of the area 
     median income on the basis of the Secretary's findings that 
     such variations are necessary because of unusually high or 
     low family incomes.''.
       Page 71, after line 11, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (e) Loss of Assistance for Termination of Tenancy.--A local 
     housing and management authority shall, consistent with 
     policies described in the local housing management plan of 
     the authority, establish policies

[[Page H4584]]

     providing that a family residing in a public housing dwelling 
     unit whose tenancy is terminated for serious violations of 
     the terms or conditions of the lease shall--
       (1) lose any right to continued occupancy in public housing 
     under this title; and
       (2) immediately become ineligible for admission to public 
     housing under this title or for housing assistance under 
     title III--
       (A) in the case of a termination due to drug-related 
     criminal activity, for a period of not less than 3 years from 
     the date of the termination; or
       (B) for other terminations, for a reasonable period of time 
     as determined period of time as determined by the local 
     housing and management authority.
       Page 71, line 22, strike the period and all that follows 
     through ``sources'' in line 24.
       Page 72, strike line 11 and all that follows through page 
     74, line 20, and insert the following new subsection:
       (b) Availability of Criminal Records.--A local housing and 
     management authority may request and obtain records regarding 
     the criminal convictions of applicants for, or tenants of, 
     public housing as provided in section 646 of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1992.
       Page 76, strike line 2 and all that follows through page 
     77, line 14, and insert the following:
       (a) Rental Contribution by Resident.--
       (1) In general.--A family shall pay as monthly rent for a 
     dwelling unit in public housing the amount that the local 
     housing and management authority determines is appropriate 
     with respect to the family and the unit, which shall be--
       (A) based upon factors determined by the authority, which 
     may include the adjusted income of the resident, type and 
     size of dwelling unit, operating and other expenses of the 
     authority, or any other factors that the authority considers 
     appropriate; and
       (B) an amount that is not less than the minimum monthly 
     rental amount under subsection (b)(1) nor more than any 
     maximum monthly rental amount established for the dwelling 
     unit pursuant to subsection (b)(2).

     In determining the amount of the rent charged under this 
     paragraph for a dwelling unit, a local housing and management 
     authority shall take into consideration the characteristics 
     of the population served by the authority, the goals of the 
     local housing management plan for the authority, and the 
     goals under the comprehensive housing affordability strategy 
     under section 105 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National 
     Affordable Housing Act (or any consolidated plan 
     incorporating such strategy) for the applicable jurisdiction.
       (2) Exceptions.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section, the amount paid for monthly rent for a dwelling 
     unit in public housing may not exceed 30 percent of the 
     family's adjusted monthly income for any family who--
       (A) upon the date of the enactment of this Act, is residing 
     in any dwelling unit in public housing and--
       (i) is an elderly family; or
       (ii) is a disabled family; or
       (B) whose income does not exceed 30 percent of the median 
     income for the area (as determined by the Secretary with 
     adjustments for smaller and larger families).
       (b) Allowable Rents.--
       (1) Minimum rental.--Each local housing and management 
     authority shall establish, for each dwelling unit in public 
     housing owned or administered by the authority, a minimum 
     monthly rental contribution toward the rent (which rent shall 
     include any amount allowed for utilities), which--
       (A) may not be less than $25, nor more than $50; and
       (B) may be increased annually by the authority, except that 
     no such annual increase may exceed 10 percent of the amount 
     of the minimum monthly rental contribution in effect for the 
     preceding year.

     Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a local housing and 
     management authority may, in its sole discretion, grant an 
     exemption in whole or in part from payment of the minimum 
     monthly rental contribution established under this paragraph 
     to any family unable to pay such amount because of severe 
     financial hardships. Severe financial hardships may include 
     situations where the family is awaiting an eligibility 
     determination for a Federal, State, or local assistance 
     program, where the family would be evicted as a result of 
     imposition of the minimum rent, and other situations as may 
     be determined by the authority.
       Page 82, line 14, before the semicolon, insert ``on or off 
     such premises''.
       Page 83, strike line 1 and all that follows through page 
     89, line 15, and insert the following new section:

     SEC. 227. DESIGNATED HOUSING FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED 
                   FAMILIES

       (a) Authority To Provide Designated Housing.--
       (1) In general.--Subject only to provisions of this section 
     and notwithstanding any other provision of law, a local 
     housing and management authority for which the information 
     required under subsection (d) is in effect may provide public 
     housing developments (or portions of developments) designated 
     for occupancy by (A) only elderly families, (B) only disabled 
     families, or (C) elderly and disabled families.
       (2) Priority for occupancy.--In determining priority for 
     admission to public housing developments (or portions of 
     developments) that are designated for occupancy as provided 
     in paragraph (1), the local housing and management authority 
     may make units in such developments (or portions) available 
     only to the types of families for whom the development is 
     designated.
       (3) Eligibility of near-elderly families.--If a local 
     housing and management authority determines that there are 
     insufficient numbers of elderly families to fill all the 
     units in a development (or portion of a development) 
     designated under paragraph (1) for occupancy by only elderly 
     families, the authority may provide that near-elderly 
     families may occupy dwelling units in the development (or 
     portion).
       (b) Standards Regarding Evictions.--Except as provided in 
     section 105(b)(1)(B), any tenant who is lawfully residing in 
     a dwelling unit in a public housing development may not be 
     evicted or otherwise required to vacate such unit because of 
     the designation of the development (or portion of a 
     development) pursuant to this section or because of any 
     action taken by the Secretary or any local housing and 
     management authority pursuant to this section.
       (c) Relocation Assistance.--A local housing and management 
     authority that designates any existing development or 
     building, or portion thereof, for occupancy as provided under 
     subsection (a)(1) shall provide, to each person and family 
     who agrees to be relocated in connection with such 
     designation--
       (1) notice of the designation and an explanation of 
     available relocation benefits, as soon as is practicable for 
     the authority and the person or family;
       (2) access to comparable housing (including appropriate 
     services and design features), which may include choice-based 
     rental housing assistance under title III, at a rental rate 
     paid by the tenant that is comparable to that applicable to 
     the unit from which the person or family has vacated; and
       (3) payment of actual, reasonable moving expenses.
       (d) Required Inclusions in Local Housing Management Plan.--
     A local housing and management authority may designate a 
     development (or portion of a development) for occupancy under 
     subsection (a)(1) only if the authority, as part of the 
     authority's local housing management plan--
       (1) establishes that the designation of the development is 
     necessary--
       (A) to achieve the housing goals for the jurisdiction under 
     the comprehensive housing affordability strategy under 
     section 105 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 
     Housing Act; and
       (B) to meet the housing needs of the low-income population 
     of the jurisdiction; and
       (2) includes a description of--
       (A) the development (or portion of a development) to be 
     designated;
       (B) the types of tenants for which the development is to be 
     designated;
       (C) any supportive services to be provided to tenants of 
     the designated development (or portion);
       (D) how the design and related facilities (as such term is 
     defined in section 202(d)(8) of the Housing Act of 1959) of 
     the development accommodate the special environmental needs 
     of the intended occupants; and
       (E) any plans to secure additional resources or housing 
     assistance to provide assistance to families that may have 
     been housed if occupancy in the development were not 
     restricted pursuant to this section.

     For purposes of this subsection, the term `supportive 
     services' means services designed to meet the special needs 
     of residents. Notwithstanding section 108, the Secretary may 
     approve a local housing management plan without approving the 
     portion of the plan covering designation of a development 
     pursuant to this section.
       (e) Effectiveness.--
       (1) Initial 5-year effectiveness.--The information required 
     under subsection (d) shall be in effect for purposes of this 
     section during the 5-year period that begins upon 
     notification under section 108(a) of the local housing and 
     management authority that the information complies with the 
     requirements under section 107 and this section.
       (2) Renewal.--Upon the expiration of the 5-year period 
     under paragraph (1) or any 2-year period under this 
     paragraph, an authority may extend the effectiveness of the 
     designation and information for an additional 2-year period 
     (that begins upon such expiration) by submitting to the 
     Secretary any information needed to update the information. 
     The Secretary may not limit the number of times a local 
     housing and management authority extends the effectiveness of 
     a designation and information under this paragraph.
       (3) Treatment of existing plans.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this section, a local housing and management 
     authority shall be considered to have submitted the 
     information required under this section if the authority has 
     submitted to the Secretary an application and allocation plan 
     under section 7 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as 
     in effect before the date of the enactment of this Act) that 
     has not been approved or disapproved before such date of 
     enactment.
       (4) Transition provision.--Any application and allocation 
     plan approved under section 7 of the United States Housing 
     Act of 1937 (as in effect before the date of the enactment of 
     this Act) before such date of enactment shall be considered 
     to be the information required to be submitted under this 
     section and that is in effect for purposes of this section 
     for the 5-year period beginning upon such approval.

[[Page H4585]]

       (g) Inapplicability of Uniform Relocation Assistance and 
     Real Property Acquisitions Policy Act of 1970.--No resident 
     of a public housing development shall be considered to be 
     displaced for purposes of the Uniform Relocation Assistance 
     and Real Property Acquisitions Policy Act of 1970 because of 
     the designation of any existing development or building, or 
     portion thereof, for occupancy as provided under subsection 
     (a) of this section.
       (h) Use of Amounts.--Any amounts appropriated pursuant to 
     section 10(b) of the Housing Opportunity Program Extension 
     Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-120) may also be used for choice-
     based rental housing assistance under title III for local 
     housing and management authorities to implement this section.
       Page 89, after line 23, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (b) Accounting System for Rental Collections and Costs.--
       (1) Establishment.--Each local housing and management 
     authority that receives grant amounts under this title shall 
     establish and maintain a system of accounting for rental 
     collections and costs (including administrative, utility, 
     maintenance, repair, and other operating costs) for each 
     project and operating cost center (as determined by the 
     Secretary).
       (2) Access to records.--Each local housing and management 
     authority shall make available to the general public the 
     information required pursuant to paragraph (1) regarding 
     collections and costs.
       (3) Exemption.--The Secretary may permit authorities owning 
     or operating fewer than 500 dwelling units to comply with the 
     requirements of this subsection by accounting on an 
     authority-wide basis.
       Page 89, line 24, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
       Page 90, strike lines 13 through 16 and insert the 
     following:

     dwellings, with such applicable
       Page 90, lines 20 and 21, strike the period ``subparagraph 
     (A)'' and insert ``paragraph (1)''.
       Page 91, strike ``and'' in line 12 and all that follows 
     through line 16 and insert a period.
       Page 92, strike lines 4 through 11, and insert the 
     following:
       Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 
     (12 U.S.C. 1701u) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by striking ``public and Indian housing agencies'' and 
     inserting ``local housing and management authorities and 
     recipients of grants under the Native American Housing 
     Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996''; and
       (ii) by striking ``development assistance'' and all that 
     follows through the end and inserting ``assistance provided 
     under title II of the United States Housing Act of 1996 and 
     used for the housing production, operation, or capital 
     needs.''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``managed by the 
     public or Indian housing agency'' and inserting ``assisted by 
     the local housing and management authority or the recipient 
     of a grant under the Native American Housing Assistance and 
     Self-Determination Act of 1996''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by striking ``public and Indian housing agencies'' and 
     inserting ``local housing and management authorities and 
     recipients of grants under the Native American Housing 
     Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996''; and
       (ii) by striking ``development assistance'' and all that 
     follows through ``section 14 of that Act'' and inserting 
     ``assistance provided under title II of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1996 and used for the housing production, 
     operation, or capital needs''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``operated by the 
     public or Indian housing agency'' and inserting ``assisted by 
     the local housing and management authority or the recipient 
     of a grant under the Native American Housing Assistance and 
     Self-Determination Act of 1996''.
       Page 93, line 3, insert ``on a regular basis'' before the 
     period.
       Page 97, line 8, strike ``is''.
       Page 108, line 16, after the period insert the following: 
     ``In addition, the Secretary may provide financial assistance 
     to resident management corporations or resident councils for 
     activities sponsored by resident organizations for economic 
     uplift, such as job training, economic development, security, 
     and other self-sufficiency activities beyond those related to 
     the management of public housing. The Secretary may require 
     resident councils or resident management corporations to 
     utilize local housing and management authorities or other 
     qualified organizations as contract administrators with 
     respect to financial assistance provided under this 
     paragraph.
       Page 109, after line 17, insert the following new 
     paragraph:
       (6) Technical assistance and clearinghouse.--The Secretary 
     may use up to 10 percent of the amount made available 
     pursuant to paragraph (4)--
       (A) to provide technical assistance, directly or by grant 
     or contract, and
       (B) to receive, collect, process, assemble, and disseminate 
     information,
     in connection with activities under this subsection.
       Page 110, line 19, after the period the following:

     An authority may transfer a unit only pursuant to a 
     homeownership program approved by the Secretary. 
     Notwithstanding section 108, the Secretary may approve a 
     local housing management plan without approving the portion 
     of the plan regarding a homeownership program pursuant to 
     this section.
       Page 111, line 5, insert after ``sales'' the following: 
     ``by purchasing units for resale to low-income families''.
       Page 111, line 16, after the period insert the following:

     In the case of purchase by an entity for resale to low-income 
     families, the entity shall sell the units to low-income 
     families within 5 years from the date of its acquisition of 
     the units. The entity shall use any net proceeds from the 
     resale and from managing the units, as determined in 
     accordance with guidelines of the Secretary, for housing 
     purposes, such as funding resident organizations and reserves 
     for capital replacements.
       Page 113, line 9, after ``propriate'' insert ``(whether the 
     family purchases directly from the authority or from another 
     entity)''.
       Page 115, line 4, after the period insert the following new 
     sentence:

     Notwithstanding section 108, the Secretary may approve a 
     local housing management plan without approving the portion 
     of the plan covering demolition or disposition pursuant to 
     this section.
       Page 127, line 19, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
       Page 127, line 21, strike ``; and'' and insert a period.
       Page 127, strike line 22 and all that follows through page 
     128, line 2, and insert the following:

     The Secretary shall give preference in selection to any local 
     housing and management authority that has been awarded a 
     planning grant under section 24(c) of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act).
       Page 129, line 4, before the period insert the following: 
     ``or to one or more other entities capable of proceeding 
     expeditiously in the same locality in carrying out the 
     revitalization plan of the original grantee''.
       Page 129, line 9, after ``troubled'' insert ``or 
     dysfunctional''.
       Page 133, line 5, strike lines 4 and 5 and insert the 
     following:

     under this section $480,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     1996, 1997, and 1998''.
       Page 133, line 17, strike ``1996'' and insert ``1998''.
       Page 133, after line 17, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 263. VOLUNTARY VOUCHER SYSTEM FOR PUBLIC HOUSING.

       (a) In General.--A local housing and management authority 
     may convert any public housing development (or portion 
     thereof) owned and operated by the authority to a system of 
     choice-based rental housing assistance under title III, in 
     accordance with this section.
       (b) Assessment and Plan Requirement.--In converting under 
     this section to a choice-based rental housing assistance 
     system, the local housing and management authority shall 
     develop a conversion assessment and plan under this 
     subsection, in consultation with the appropriate public 
     officials and with significant participation by the residents 
     of the development (or portion thereof), which assessment and 
     plan shall--
       (1) be consistent with and part of the local housing 
     management plan for the authority;
       (2) describe the conversion and future use or disposition 
     of the public housing development, including an impact 
     analysis on the affected community;
       (3) include a cost analysis that demonstrates whether or 
     not the cost (both on a net present value basis and in terms 
     of new budget authority requirements) of providing choice-
     based rental housing assistance under title III for the same 
     families in substantially similar dwellings over the same 
     period of time is less expensive than continuing public 
     housing assistance in the public housing development proposed 
     for conversion for the remaining useful life of the 
     development; and
       (4) identify the actions, if any, that the local housing 
     and management authority will take with regard to converting 
     any public housing development or developments (or portions 
     thereof) of the authority to a system of choice-based rental 
     housing assistance under title III.
       (c) Streamlined Assessment and Plan.--At the discretion of 
     the Secretary or at the request of a local housing and 
     management authority, the Secretary may waive any or all of 
     the requirements of subsection (b) or otherwise require a 
     streamlined assessment with respect to any public housing 
     development or class of public housing developments.
       (d) Implementation of Conversion Plan.--
       (1) In general.--A local housing and management authority 
     may implement a conversion plan only if the conversion 
     assessment under this section demonstrates that the 
     conversion--
       (A) will not be more expensive than continuing to operate 
     the public housing development (or portion thereof) as public 
     housing; and
       (B) will principally benefit the residents of the public 
     housing development (or portion thereof) to be converted, the 
     local housing and management authority, and the community.
       (2) Disapproval.--The Secretary shall disapprove a 
     conversion plan only if the plan is

[[Page H4586]]

     plainly inconsistent with the conversion assessment under 
     subsection (b) or there is reliable information and data 
     available to the Secretary that contradicts that conversion 
     assessment.
       (e) Other Requirements.--To the extent approved by the 
     Secretary, the funds used by the local housing and management 
     authority to provide choice-based rental housing assistance 
     under title III shall be added to the housing assistance 
     payment contract administered by the local housing and 
     management authority or any entity administering the contract 
     on behalf of the local housing and management authority.
       (f) Savings Provision.--This section does not affect any 
     contract or other agreement entered into under section 22 of 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as such section 
     existed immediately before the enactment of this Act).
       Page 135, line 18, strike ``section 202(b)'' and insert 
     ``section 202(d)''.
       Page 138, strike line 5 and all that follows through line 7 
     and insert the following:
       There are authorized to be appropriated for grants under 
     this title, the following amounts:
       (1) Capital Fund.--For the allocations from the capital 
     fund for grants, $2,500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000; and
       (2) Operating Fund.--For the allocations from the operating 
     fund for grants, $2,800,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.
       Page 141, line 7, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(4)''.
       Page 141, line 10, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(5)''.
       Page 140, line 21, after ``title'' insert the following: 
     ``pursuant to the formula established under section 304(a)''.
       Page 141, lines 16 and 17, strike ``subsection (c) and 
     section 109'' and insert ``subsections (b)(3) and (c), and 
     section 112''.
       Page 143, line 19, after ``including'' insert the 
     following: ``funding for the headquarters reserve fund under 
     section 112,''.
       Page 143, line 25, after ``displacement'' insert ``from 
     public or assisted housing''.
       Page 144, line 9, strike ``loan'' and insert ``portfolio''.
       Page 148, line 22, strike ``the Secretary'' and all that 
     follows through page 149, line 21, and insert the following: 
     ``the Secretary shall take such steps as may be necessary to 
     ensure that the local housing and management authority that 
     provides the services for a family receives all or part of 
     the administrative fee under this section (as 
     appropriate).''.
       Page 152, after line 2, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (b) Income Targeting.--Of the families initially assisted 
     under this title by a local housing and management authority 
     in any year, not less than 50 percent shall be families whose 
     incomes do not exceed 60 percent of the area median income, 
     as determined by the Secretary with adjustments for smaller 
     and larger families. The Secretary may establish income 
     ceiling higher or lower than 30 percent of the area median 
     income on the basis of the Secretary's findings that such 
     variations are necessary because of unusually high or low 
     family incomes.
       Page 152, line 3, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
       Page 152, line 18, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
       Page 153, strike line 11 and all that follows through line 
     25 on page 155, and insert the following new subsection:
       (d) Portability of Housing Assistance.--
       (1) National portability.--An eligible family that is 
     selected to receive or is receiving assistance under this 
     title may rent any eligible dwelling unit in any area where a 
     program is being administered under this title. 
     Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a local housing and 
     management authority may require that any family not living 
     within the jurisdiction of the local housing and management 
     authority at the time the family applies for assistance from 
     the authority shall, during the 12-month period beginning on 
     the date of initial receipt of housing assistance made 
     available on behalf of the family from that authority, lease 
     and occupy an eligible dwelling unit located within the 
     jurisdiction served by the authority. The authority for the 
     jurisdiction into which the family moves shall have the 
     responsibility for administering assistance for the family.
       (2) Source of funding for a family that moves.--For a 
     family that has moved into the jurisdiction of a local 
     housing and management authority and that, at the time of the 
     move, has been selected to receive, or is receiving, 
     assistance provided by another authority, the authority for 
     the jurisdiction into which the family has moved may, in its 
     discretion, cover the cost of assisting the family under its 
     contract with the Secretary or through reimbursement from the 
     other authority under that authority's contract.
       (3) Authority to deny assistance to certain families who 
     move.--A family may not receive housing assistance as 
     provided under this subsection if the family has moved from a 
     dwelling unit in violation of the lease for the dwelling 
     unit.
       (4) Funding allocations.--In providing assistance amounts 
     under this title for local housing and management authorities 
     for any fiscal year, the Secretary may give consideration to 
     any reduction or increase in the number of resident families 
     under the program of an authority in the preceding fiscal 
     year as a result of this subsection.
       Page 156, line 3, strike ``may, to the extent such policies 
     are'' and insert ``shall, consistent with the policies''.
       Page 156, lines 4 and 5, strike ``and included in the lease 
     for a dwelling unit''.
       Page 156, strike lines 11 through 14 and insert the 
     following new paragraph:
       (2) immediately become ineligible for housing assistance 
     under this title or for admission to public housing under 
     title II--
       (A) in the case of a termination due to drug-related 
     criminal activity, for a period of not less than 3 years from 
     the date of the termination; and
       (B) for other terminations, for a reasonable period of time 
     as determined by the local housing and management authority.
       Page 156, line 15, strike ``(h)'' and insert ``(f)''.
       Page 156, after line 24, insert the following new 
     subsections:
       (i) Denial of Assistance to Criminal Offenders.--In making 
     assistance under this title available on behalf of eligible 
     families, a local housing and management authority may deny 
     the provision of such assistance in the same manner, for the 
     same period, and subject to the same conditions that an owner 
     of federally assisted housing may deny occupancy in such 
     housing under subsections (b) and (c) of section 642 of the 
     Housing and Community Development Act of 1992.
       (j) Availability of Criminal Records.--A local housing and 
     management authority may request and obtain records regarding 
     the criminal convictions of applicants for housing assistance 
     under this title and assisted families under this title to 
     the same extent an owner of federally assisted housing may 
     obtain such records regarding an applicant for or tenant of 
     federally assisted housing under section 646 of the Housing 
     and Community Development Act of 1992.
       Page 157, strike line 2 and all that follows through page 
     158, line 8, and insert the following new subsections:
       (a) Amount.--
       (1) In general.--An assisted family shall contribute on a 
     monthly basis for the rental of an assisted dwelling unit an 
     amount that the local housing and management authority 
     determines is appropriate with respect to the family and the 
     unit, but shall not be less than the minimum monthly rental 
     contribution determined under subsection (b).
       (2) Exceptions for certain current residents.--
     Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the amount paid by an assisted 
     family for monthly rent for an assisted dwelling unit, may 
     not exceed 30 percent of the family's adjusted monthly income 
     for any family who--
       (A) upon the date of the enactment of this Act, is an 
     assisted family and--
       (i) is an elderly family; or
       (ii) is a disabled family; or
       (B) whose income does not exceed 30 percent of the median 
     income for the area (as determined by the Secretary with 
     adjustments for smaller and larger families).

     Any amount payable under paragraph (3) shall be in addition 
     to the amount payable under this paragraph.
       (3) Excess rental amount.--In any case in which the monthly 
     rent charged for a dwelling unit pursuant to the housing 
     assistance payments contract exceeds the applicable payment 
     standard (established under section 353) for the dwelling 
     unit, the assisted family residing in the unit shall 
     contribute (in addition to the amount of the monthly rent 
     contribution otherwise determined under paragraph (1) or (2) 
     of this subsection for such family) such entire excess rental 
     amount.
       (b) Minimum Monthly Rental Contribution.--
       (1) In General.--The local housing and management authority 
     shall determine the amount of the minimum monthly rental 
     contribution of an assisted family (which rent shall include 
     any amount allowed for utilities), which--
       (A) shall be based upon factors including the adjusted 
     income of the family and any other factors that the authority 
     considers appropriate;
       (B) shall be not less than $25, nor more than $50; and
       (C) may be increased annually by the authority, except that 
     no such annual increase may exceed 10 percent of the amount 
     of the minimum monthly contribution in effect for the 
     preceding year.
       (2) Hardship exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a 
     local housing and management authority may, in its sole 
     discretion, grant an exemption in whole or in part from 
     payment of the minimum monthly rental contribution 
     established under this paragraph to any assisted family 
     unable to pay such amount because of severe financial 
     hardships. Severe financial hardships may include situations 
     where the family is awaiting an eligibility determination for 
     a Federal, State, or local assistance program, where the 
     family would be evicted as a result of imposition of the 
     minimum rent, and other situations as may be determined by 
     the authority.
       Page 161, line 21, strike ``section 325'' and insert ``this 
     title''.
       Page 162, line 19, before the period, insert ``on or off 
     such premises''.
       Page 163, strike lines 9 through 16 and insert the 
     following new paragraph:
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), a local 
     housing and management authority--
       (A) may not enter into a housing assistance payments 
     contract (or renew an existing contract) covering a dwelling 
     unit that is

[[Page H4587]]

     owned by an owner who is debarred, suspended, or subject to 
     limited denial of participation under part 24 of title 24, 
     Code of Federal Regulations;
       (B) may prohibit, or authorize the termination or 
     suspension of, payment of housing assistance under a housing 
     assistance payments contract in effect at the time such 
     debarment, suspension, or limited denial of participation 
     takes effect.

     If the local housing and management authority takes action 
     under subparagraph (B), the authority shall take such actions 
     as may be necessary to protect assisted families who are 
     affected by the action, which may include the provision of 
     additional assistance under this title to such families.
       Page 163, strike line 23 and all that follows through page 
     164, line 2.
       Page 164, line 8, before the period insert ``and any 
     applicable law''.
       Page 165, line 17, strike ``subsection (b)'' and insert 
     ``subsection (c)''.
       Page 166, strike lines 9 through 22 and insert the 
     following new paragraph:
       (2) Expeditious inspection.--Inspections of dwelling units 
     under this subsection shall be made before the expiration of 
     the 15-day period beginning upon a request by the resident or 
     landlord to the local housing and management authority. The 
     performance of the authority in meeting the 15-day inspection 
     deadline shall be taken into account in assessing the 
     performance of the authority.
       Page 167, line 14, strike ``The authority'' and all that 
     follows through line 19 and insert the following new 
     sentence: ``The authority shall retain the records of the 
     inspection for a reasonable time and shall make the records 
     available upon request to the Secretary and the Inspector 
     General for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
     the Housing Foundation and Accreditation Board established 
     under title IV, and any auditor conducting an audit under 
     section 432.''.
       Page 168, line 18, before ``income'' insert ``sufficient''.
       Page 170, line 18, after ``dwelling units'' insert the 
     ``(other than public housing)''.
       Page 170, line 22, strike ``or the owner''.
       Page 171, strike line 15 and all that follows through page 
     172, line 11, and insert the following new section:

     SEC. 352. AMOUNT OF MONTHLY ASSISTANCE PAYMENT.

       (a) Units Having Gross Rent Exceeding Payment Standard.--In 
     the case of a dwelling unit bearing a gross rent that exceeds 
     the payment standard established under section 353 for a 
     dwelling unit of the applicable size and located in the 
     market area in which such assisted dwelling unit is located--
       (1) the amount by which such payment standard exceeds the 
     amount of the resident contribution determined in accordance 
     with section 322(a)(1); or
       (2) in the case only of families described in paragraph (2) 
     of section 322(a), the amount by which such payment standard 
     exceeds the lesser of (i) the resident contribution 
     determined in accordance with section 322(a)(1), or (ii) 30 
     percent of the family's adjusted monthly income.
       (b) Shopping Incentive for Units Having Gross Rent Not 
     Exceeding Payment Standard.--In the case of an assisted 
     family renting an eligible dwelling unit bearing a gross rent 
     that does not exceed the payment standard established under 
     section 353 for a dwelling unit of the applicable size and 
     located in the market area in which such assisted dwelling 
     unit is located, the following requirements shall apply:
       (1) Amount of monthly assistance payment.--The amount of 
     the monthly assistance payment for housing assistance under 
     this title on behalf of the assisted family shall be the 
     amount by which the gross rent for the dwelling unit exceeds 
     the amount of the resident contribution.
       (2) Escrow of shopping incentive savings.--An amount equal 
     to 50 percent of the difference between payment standard and 
     the gross rent for the dwelling unit shall be placed in an 
     interest bearing escrow account on behalf of such family on a 
     monthly basis by the local housing and management authority. 
     Amounts in the escrow account shall be made available to the 
     assisted family on an annual basis.
       (3) Deficit reduction.--The local housing and management 
     authority making housing assistance payments on behalf of 
     such assisted family in a fiscal year shall reserve from 
     amounts made available to the authority for assistance 
     payments for such fiscal year an amount equal to the amount 
     described in paragraph (2). At the end of each fiscal year, 
     the Secretary shall recapture any such amounts reserved by 
     local housing and management authorities and such amounts 
     shall be covered into the General Fund of the Treasury of the 
     United States.

     For purposes of this section, in the case of a family 
     receiving homeownership assistance under section 329, the 
     term ``gross rent'' shall mean the homeownership costs to the 
     family as determined in accordance with guidelines of the 
     Secretary.
       Page 173, line 3, strike ``large''.
       Page 173, strike ``For purposes'' in line 15 and all that 
     follows through line 19.
       Page 174, line 5, after ``unit'' insert ``(with respect to 
     initial contract rents and any rent revisions)''.
       Page 179, line 25, strike ``section 110'' and insert 
     ``section 111''.
       Page 182, line 17, strike ``2'' and insert ``at least 2, 
     but not more than 4''.
       Page 183, after line 15, insert the following new 
     subparagraph:
       (E) At least 1 individual who has extensive experience in 
     auditing participants in government programs.
       Page 186, after line 2, insert the following new paragraph:
       (3) Improvement of independent audits.--Providing for the 
     development of effective means for conducting comprehensive 
     financial and performance audits of local housing and 
     management authorities under section 432 and, to the extent 
     provided in such section, providing for the conducting of 
     such audits.
       Page 186, line 3, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''.
       Page 186, strike lines 6 through 8 and insert the 
     following:

     grants under title II for the operation, maintenance, and 
     production of public housing and amounts for housing 
     assistance under title III, ensuring that financial and 
     performance audits under section 432
       Page 186, line 12, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
       Page 187, after line 13, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (c) Assistance From National Center for Housing 
     Management.--
       (1) In general.--During the period referred to in 
     subsection (a), the National Center for Housing Management 
     established by Executive Order 11668 (42 U.S.C. 3531 note) 
     shall, to the extent agreed to by the Center, provide the 
     Board with ongoing assistance and advice relating to the 
     following matters:
       (A) Organizing the structure of the Board and its 
     operations.
       (B) Establishing performance standards and guidelines under 
     section 431(a).

     Such Center may, at the request of the Board, provide 
     assistance and advice with respect to matters not described 
     in paragraphs (1) and (2) and after the expiration of the 
     period referred to in subsection (a).
       (2) Assistance.--The assistance provided by such Center 
     shall include staff and logistical support for the Board and 
     such operational and managerial activities as are necessary 
     to assist the Board to carry out its functions during the 
     period referred to in subsection (a).
       Page 188, after line 22, insert the following new 
     paragraph:
       (4) HUD inspector general.--The Inspector General of the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development shall serve the 
     Board as a principal adviser with respect to all aspects of 
     annual financial and performance audits of local housing and 
     management authorities under section 432. The Inspector 
     General may advise the Board with respect to other activities 
     and functions of the Board.
       Page 189, line 4 and 5, strike ``research or surveys'' and 
     insert ``evaluations under section 404(b), audits of local 
     housing and management authorities as provided under section 
     432, research, and surveys''.
       Page 189, line 6, before the period insert the following: 
     ``, and may enter into contracts with the National Center for 
     Housing Management to conduct the functions assigned to the 
     Center under this title''.
       Page 190, line 5, strike ``and'' and insert a comma.
       Page 190, line 6, before the period insert ``, and 
     conducting audits of authorities under section 432''.
       Page 190, after line 13, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (a) Report on Coordination With HUD Functions.--Not later 
     than the expiration of the 12-month period beginning upon the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Board shall submit a 
     report to the Congress that--
       (1) identifies and describes the processes, procedures, and 
     activities of the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
     which may duplicate functions of the Board, and makes 
     recommendations regarding activities of the Department that 
     may no longer be necessary as a result of improved auditing 
     of authorities pursuant to this title;
       (2) makes recommendations for any changes to Federal law 
     necessary to improve auditing of local housing and management 
     authorities; and
       (3) makes recommendations regarding the review and 
     evaluation functions currently performed by the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development that may be more efficiently 
     performed by the Board and should be performed by the Board, 
     and those that should continue to be performed by the 
     Department.
       Page 190, line 14, before ``The'' insert ``(b) Annual 
     Reports.--''.
       Page 190, after line 23, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 408. GAO AUDIT.

       The activities and transactions of the Board shall be 
     subject to audit by the Comptroller General of the United 
     States under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed 
     by the Comptroller General. The representatives of the 
     General Accounting Office shall have access for the purpose 
     of audit and examination to any books, documents, papers, and 
     records of the Board that are necessary to facilitate an 
     audit.
       Page 196, strike line 10 and all that follows through page 
     198, line 25, and insert the following new section:

     SEC. 432. FINANCIAL AND PERFORMANCE AUDITS.

       (a) Requirement.--A financial and performance audit under 
     this section shall be conducted for each local housing and 
     management authority for each fiscal year that

[[Page H4588]]

     the authority receives grant amounts under this Act, as 
     provided under one of the following paragraphs:
       (1) Lhma provides for audit.--If neither the Secretary nor 
     the Board takes action under paragraph (2) or (3), the 
     Secretary shall require the local housing and management 
     authority to have the audit conducted. The Secretary may 
     prescribe that such audits be conducted pursuant to 
     guidelines set forth by the Department.
       (2) Secretary requests board to provide for audit.--The 
     Secretary may request the Board to contract directly with an 
     auditor to have the audit conducted for the authority.
       (3) Board provides for audit.--The Board may notify the 
     Secretary that it will contract directly with an auditor to 
     have the audit conducted for the authority.
       (b) Other Audits.--Pursuant to risk assessment strategies 
     designed to ensure the integrity of the programs for 
     assistance under this Act, which shall be established by the 
     Inspector General for the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development in consultation with the Board, the Inspector 
     General may request the Board to conduct audits under this 
     subsection of local housing and management authorities. Such 
     audits may be in addition to, or in place of, audits under 
     subsection (a), as the Board shall provide.
       (c) Submission of Results.--
       (1) Submission to secretary and board.--The results of any 
     audit conducted under this subsection shall be submitted to 
     the local housing and management authority, the Secretary, 
     and the Board.
       (2) Submission to local officials.--
       (A) Requirement.--A local housing and management authority 
     shall submit each audit conducted under this section to any 
     local elected official or officials responsible for 
     appointing the members of the board of directors (or other 
     similar governing body) of the local housing and management 
     authority for review and comment. Any such comments shall be 
     submitted, together with the audit, to the Secretary and the 
     Board and the Secretary and the Board shall consider such 
     comments in reviewing the audit.
       (B) Timing.--An audit shall be submitted to local officials 
     as provided in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) in the case of an audit conducted under subsection 
     (a)(1), not later than 60 days before the local housing and 
     management authority submits the audit to the Secretary and 
     the Board; or
       (ii) in the case of an audit under paragraph (2) or (3) of 
     subsection (a) or under subsection (b), not later than 60 
     days after the authority receives the audit.
       (d) Procedures.-- The requirements for financial and 
     performance audits under this section shall--
       (1) be established by the Board, in consultation with the 
     Inspector General of the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development;
       (2) provide for the audit to be conducted by an independent 
     auditor selected--
       (A) in the case of an audit under subsection (a)(1), by the 
     authority; and
       (B) in the case of an audit under paragraph (2) or (3) of 
     subsection (a) or under subsection (b), by the Board;
       (3) authorize the auditor to obtain information from a 
     local housing and management authority, to access any books, 
     documents, papers, and records of an authority that are 
     pertinent to this Act and assistance received pursuant to 
     this Act, and to review any reports of an authority to the 
     Secretary;
       (4) impose sufficient requirements for obtaining 
     information so that the audits are useful to the Board in 
     evaluating local housing and management authorities; and
       (5) include procedures for testing the reliability of 
     internal financial controls of local housing and management 
     authorities.
       (e) Purpose.--Audits under this section shall be designed 
     to--
       (1) evaluate the financial performance and soundness and 
     management performance of the local housing and management 
     authority board of directors (or other similar governing 
     body) and the authority management officials and staff;
       (2) assess the compliance of an authority with all aspects 
     of the standards and guidelines established under section 
     431(a)(1);
       (3) provide information to the Secretary and the Board 
     regarding the financial performance and management of the 
     authority and to determine whether a review under section 
     225(d) or 353(c) is required; and
       (4) identify potential problems in the operations, 
     management, functioning of a local housing and management 
     authority at a time before such problems result in serious 
     and complicated deficiencies.
       (f) Inapplicability of Single Audit Act.--Notwithstanding 
     the first sentence of section 7503(a) of title 31, United 
     States Code, an audit conducted in accordance with chapter 75 
     of such title shall not exempt any local housing and 
     management authority from conducting an audit under this 
     section. Audits under this section shall not be subject to 
     the requirements for audits under such chapter. An audit 
     under this section for a local housing and management 
     authority for a fiscal year shall be considered to satisfy 
     any requirements under such chapter for such fiscal year.
       (g) Withholding of Amounts for Costs of Audit.--
       (1) Lhma responsible for audit.--If the Secretary requires 
     a local housing and management authority to have an audit 
     under this section conducted pursuant to subsection (a)(1) 
     and determines that the authority has failed to take the 
     actions required to submit an audit under this section for a 
     fiscal year, the Secretary may--
       (A) arrange for, and pay the costs of, the audit and 
     withhold, from the total allocation for any fiscal year 
     otherwise payable to the authority under this Act, amounts 
     sufficient to pay for the reasonable costs of conducting an 
     acceptable audit (including, if appropriate, the reasonable 
     costs of accounting services necessary to place the 
     authority's books and records in condition that permits an 
     audit); or
       (B) request the Board to conduct the audit pursuant to 
     subsection (a)(2) and withhold amounts pursuant to paragraph 
     (2) of this subsection.
       (2) Board responsible for audit.--If the Board is 
     responsible for an audit for a local housing and management 
     authority pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a), 
     subsection (b), or paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall--
       (A) withhold, from the total allocation for any fiscal year 
     otherwise payable to the authority under this Act, amounts 
     sufficient to pay for the audit, but in no case more than the 
     reasonable cost of conducting an acceptable audit (including, 
     if appropriate, the reasonable costs of accounting services 
     necessary to place the authority's books and records in 
     condition that permits an audit); and
       (B) transfer such amounts to the Board.
       Page 201, line 21, strike ``to prepare''.
       Page 201, line 23, after ``housing'' insert ``or 
     functions''.
       Page 202, lines 1 and 2, strike ``to prepare''.
       Page 203, lines 17 and 18, strike ``the expiration'' and 
     all that follows through ``437(b)(2)'' on line 19, and insert 
     the following: ``such period, the Secretary shall take the 
     action authorized under subsection (b)(2) or (b)(5) of 
     section 438''.
       Page 203, line 19, strike ``437(b)(2)'' and insert 
     ``438(b)(2) or (b)(5)''.
       Page 207, line 16, strike ``section 435'' and insert 
     ``section 436''.
       Page 209, line 9, strike ``if'' and all that follows 
     through the comma on line 12.
       Page 210, line 9, before the semicolon insert ``, but only 
     after efforts to renegotiate such contracts have failed''.
       Page 210, line 19, after ``laws'' insert the following: 
     ``relating to civil service requirements, employee rights, 
     procurement, or financial or administrative controls''.
       Page 210, line 20, strike ``receiver'' and insert 
     ``Secretary''.
       Page 212, line 24, strike ``(D'' and insert ``(D)''.
       Page 212, line 25, after ``laws'' insert the following: 
     ``relating to civil service requirements, employee rights, 
     procurement, or financial or administrative controls''.
       Page 213, after line 23, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (g) Effectiveness.--The provisions of this section shall 
     apply with respect to actions taken before, on, or after the 
     effective date of this Act and shall apply to any receivers 
     appointed for a public housing agency before the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       Page 215, line 7, strike ``for the first year beginning 
     after the date of enactment of this Act''.
       Page 216, line 2, strike ``section 438(b)'' and insert 
     ``section 439(b)''.
       Page 217, line 7, strike ``section 432'' and insert 
     ``section 433''.
       Page 217, line 9, strike ``and 436'' and insert ``436, and 
     438''.
       Page 218, strike lines 19 through 22 (and redesignate 
     subsequent paragraphs accordingly).
       Page 226, after line 9, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (f) Conversion of Project-Based Assistance to Choice-Based 
     Rental Assistance.--
       (1) Section 8 project-based contracts.--Upon the request of 
     the owner of a multifamily housing project for which project-
     based assistance is provided under a contract entered into 
     under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as 
     in effect before the enactment of this Act), notwithstanding 
     the termination date of such contract the Secretary shall 
     provide for a reduction in the number of dwelling units 
     assisted under the contract, which may not exceed 40 percent 
     of the units in the project and shall be subject to the 
     requirements in paragraphs (3) and (4) of this subsection.
       (2) Section 236 contracts.--Upon the request of the owner 
     of a multifamily housing project for which assistance is 
     provided under a contract for interest reduction payments 
     under section 236 of the National Housing Act, 
     notwithstanding the termination date of such contract the 
     Secretary shall provide for a reduction in the number of 
     dwelling units assisted under the contract, which may not 
     exceed 40 percent of the units in the project. The amount of 
     the interest reduction payments made on behalf of the owner 
     shall be reduced by a fraction for which the numerator is the 
     aggregate basic rent for the units which are no longer 
     assisted under the contract for interest reduction payments 
     and the denominator is the aggregate basic rents for all 
     units in the project. The requirements of section 236(g) of 
     the National Housing Act shall not apply to rental charges 
     collected with respect to dwelling units for which assistance 
     in terminated under this paragraph. Such reduction shall be 
     subject to the requirements in paragraphs (3) and (4) of this 
     subsection.
       (3) Eligible units.--A unit may be removed from coverage by 
     a contract pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) only--
       (A) upon the vacancy of the unit; and

[[Page H4589]]

       (B) in the case of--
       (i) units assisted under section 8 of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937, if the contract rent for the unit is not 
     less than the applicable fair market rental established 
     pursuant to section 8(c) of such Act for the area in which 
     the unit is located; or
       (ii) units assisted under an interest reduction contract 
     under section 236 of the National Housing Act, if the 
     reduction in the amount of interest reduction payments on a 
     monthly basis is less than the aggregate amount of fair 
     market rents established pursuant to section 8(c) of such Act 
     for the number and type of units which are removed from 
     coverage by the contract.
       (4) Recapture.--Any budget authority that becomes available 
     to a local housing and management authority or the Secretary 
     pursuant to this section shall be used to provide choice-
     based rental assistance under title III, during the term 
     covered by such contract.
       Page 231, line 24, after the period insert the following 
     new sentence: ``The plan shall be developed with the 
     participation of residents and appropriate law enforcement 
     officials.''.
       Page 240, after the matter following line 17, insert the 
     following new subsection:
       (i) Treatment of NOFA.--The cap limiting assistance under 
     the Notice of Funding Availability issued by the Department 
     of Housing and Urban Development in the Federal Register of 
     April 8, 1996, shall not apply to a local housing and 
     management authority within an area designated as a high 
     intensity drug trafficking area under section 1005(c) of the 
     Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1504(c).
       At the end of title V of the bill, insert the following new 
     sections:

     SEC. 504. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PROJECTS.

       Rehabilitation activities undertaken by Pennrose Properties 
     in connection with 40 dwelling units for senior citizens in 
     the Providence Square development located in New Brunswick, 
     New Jersey, are hereby deemed to have been conducted pursuant 
     to the approval of and an agreement with the Secretary of 
     Housing and Urban Development under clauses (i) and (ii) of 
     the third sentence of section 8(d)(2)(A) of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act).

     SEC. 505. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Eligibility of Metropolitan Cities.--Section 102(a)(4) 
     of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 
     U.S.C. 5302(a)(4)) is amended--
       (1) by striking the second sentence and inserting the 
     following new sentence: ``Any city that was classified as a 
     metropolitan city for at least 1 year after September 30, 
     1989, pursuant to the first sentence of this paragraph, shall 
     remain classified as a metropolitan city by reason of this 
     sentence until the first year for which data from the 2000 
     Decennial Census is available for use for purposes of 
     allocating amounts this title.''; and
       (2) by striking the fifth sentence and inserting the 
     following new sentence: ``Notwithstanding that the population 
     of a unit of general local government was included, after 
     September 30, 1989, with the population of an urban county 
     for purposes of qualifying for assistance under section 106, 
     the unit of general local government may apply for assistance 
     under section 106 as a metropolitan city if the unit meets 
     the requirements of the second sentence of this paragraph.''.
       (b) Public Services Limitation.--Section 105(a)(8) of the 
     Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
     5305(a)(8)) is amended by striking ``through 1997'' and 
     inserting ``through 1998''.

     SEC. 506. AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY FOR 
                   HOUSING USE.

       Section 203 of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 484) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(r)(1) Under such regulations as the Administrator may 
     prescribe, and with the written consent of appropriate local 
     governmental authorities, the Administrator may transfer to 
     any nonprofit organization which exists for the primary 
     purpose of providing housing or housing assistance for 
     homeless individuals or families, such surplus real property, 
     including buildings, fixtures, and equipment situated 
     thereon, as is needed for housing use.
       ``(2) Under such regulations as the Administrator may 
     prescribe, and with the written consent of appropriate local 
     governmental authorities, the Administrator may transfer to 
     any nonprofit organization which exists for the primary 
     purpose of providing housing or housing assistance for low-
     income individuals or families such surplus real property, 
     including buildings, fixtures, and equipment situated 
     thereon, as is needed for housing use.
       ``(3) In making transfers under this subsection, the 
     Administrator shall take such action, which shall include 
     grant agreements with an organization receiving a grant, as 
     may be necessary to ensure that--
       ``(A) assistance provided under this subsection is used to 
     facilitate and encourage homeownership opportunities through 
     the construction of self-help housing, under terms which 
     require that the person receiving the assistance contribute a 
     significant amount of labor toward the construction; and
       ``(B) the dwellings constructed with property transferred 
     under this subsection shall be quality dwellings that comply 
     with local building and safety codes and standards and shall 
     be available at prices below the prevailing market prices.
       ``(4)(A) Where the Administrator has transferred a 
     significant portion of a surplus real property, including 
     buildings, fixtures, and equipment situated thereon, under 
     paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsection, the transfer of the 
     entire property shall be deemed to be in compliance with 
     title V of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 11411 et seq.).
       ``(B) For the purpose of this paragraph, the term `a 
     significant portion of a surplus real property' means a 
     portion of surplus real property--
       ``(i) which constitutes at least 5 acres of total acreage;
       ``(ii) whose fair market value exceeds $100,000; or
       ``(iii) whose fair market value exceeds 15 percent of the 
     surplus property's fair market value.
       ``(5) The provisions of this section shall not apply to 
     buildings and property at military installations that are 
     approved for closure under the Defense Base Closure and 
     Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 
     101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) and shall not supersede the 
     provisions of section 2(e) of the Base Closure Community 
     Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 (10 U.S.C. 
     2687 note).''.

     SEC. 507. RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE.

       The last sentence of section 520 of the Housing Act of 1949 
     (42 U.S.C. 1490) is amended by inserting before the period 
     the following: ``, and the city of Altus, Oklahoma, shall be 
     considered a rural area for purposes of this title until the 
     receipt of data from the decennial census in the year 2000''.

     SEC. 508. TREATMENT OF OCCUPANCY STANDARDS.

       (a) National Standard Prohibited.--The Secretary of Housing 
     and Urban Development shall not directly or indirectly 
     establish a national occupancy standard.
       (b) State Standard.--If a State establishes an occupancy 
     standard--
       (1) such standard shall be presumed reasonable for purposes 
     of any laws administered by the Secretary; and
       (2) the Secretary shall not suspend, withdraw, or deny 
     certification of any State or local public agency based in 
     whole or in part on that State occupancy standard or its 
     operation.
       (c) Absence of State Standard.--If a State fails to 
     establish an occupancy standard, an occupancy standard of 2 
     persons per bedroom established by a housing provider shall 
     be presumed reasonable for the purposes of any laws 
     administered by the Secretary.
       (d) Definition.--
       (1) General rule.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     term ``occupancy standard'' means a law, regulation, or 
     housing provider policy that establishes a limit on the 
     number of residents a housing provider can properly manage in 
     a dwelling for any 1 or more of the following purposes--
       (A) providing a decent home and services for each resident;
       (B) enhancing the livability of a dwelling for all 
     residents, including the dwelling for each particular 
     resident; and
       (C) avoiding undue physical deterioration of the dwelling 
     and property.
       (2) Exception.--The term ``occupancy standard'' does not 
     include a Federal, State, or local restriction regarding the 
     maximum number of persons permitted to occupy a dwelling for 
     the sole purpose of protecting the health and safety of the 
     residents of a dwelling, including building and housing code 
     provisions.
       (e) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect January 
     1, 1996.

     SEC. 509. IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN.

       (a) Implementation.--Within 120 days after the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     shall implement the Ida Barbour Revitalization Plan of the 
     City of Portsmouth, Virginia, in a manner consistent with 
     existing limitations under law. The Secretary shall consider 
     and make any waivers to existing regulations consistent with 
     such plan to enable timely implementation of such plan.
       (b) Report.--Such city shall submit a report to the 
     Secretary on progress in implementing the plan not later than 
     1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act and 
     annually thereafter through the year 2000. The report shall 
     include quantifiable measures revealing the increase in 
     homeowners, employment, tax base, voucher allocation, 
     leverage ratio of funds, impact on and compliance with the 
     city's consolidated plan, identification of regulatory and 
     statutory obstacles which have or are causing unnecessary 
     delays in the plan's successful implementation or are 
     contributing to unnecessary costs associated with the 
     revitalization, and any other information as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate.

     SEC. 510. INCOME ELIGIBILITY FOR HOME AND CDBG PROGRAMS.

       (a) Home Investment Partnerships.--The Cranston-Gonzalez 
     National Affordable Housing Act is amended as follows:
       (1) Definitions.--In section 104(10) (42 U.S.C. 
     12704(10))--
       (A) by striking ``income ceilings higher or lower'' and 
     inserting ``an income ceiling higher'';
       (B) by striking ``variations are'' and inserting 
     ``variation is''; and
       (C) by striking ``high or''.
       (2) Income targeting.--In section 214(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 
     12744(1)(A))--

[[Page H4590]]

       (A) by striking ``income ceilings higher or lower'' and 
     inserting ``an income ceiling higher'';
       (B) by striking ``variations are'' and inserting 
     ``variation is''; and
       (C) by striking ``high or''.
       (3) Rent limits.--In section 215(a)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 
     12745(a)(1)(A))--
       (A) by striking ``income ceilings higher or lower'' and 
     inserting ``an income ceiling higher'';
       (B) by striking ``variations are'' and inserting 
     ``variation is''; and
       (C) by striking ``high or''.
       (b) CDBG.--Section 102(a)(20) of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302(a)(20)) is amended by 
     striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(B) The Secretary may--
       ``(i) with respect to any reference in subparagraph (A) to 
     50 percent of the median income of the area involved, 
     establish percentages of median income for any area that are 
     higher or lower than 50 percent if the Secretary finds such 
     variations to be necessary because of unusually high or low 
     family incomes in such area; and
       ``(ii) with respect to any reference in subparagraph (A) to 
     80 percent of the median income of the area involved, 
     establish a percentage of median income for any area that is 
     higher than 80 percent if the Secretary finds such variation 
     to be necessary because of unusually low family incomes in 
     such area.''.

     SEC. 511. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO SECTION 236 PROGRAM.

       Section 236(f)(1) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1715z-1) (as amended by section 405(d)(1) of The Balanced 
     Budget Downpayment Act, I, and by section 228(a) of The 
     Balanced Budget Downpayment Act, II) is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence, by striking ``the lower of 
     (i)'';
       (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``(ii) the fair 
     market rental established under section 8(c) of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 for the market area in which the 
     housing is located, or (iii) the actual rent (as determined 
     by the Secretary) paid for a comparable unit in comparable 
     unassisted housing in the market area in which the housing 
     assisted under this section is located,''; and
       (3) by inserting after the second sentence the following: 
     ``However, in the case of a project which contains more than 
     5,000 units, is subject to an interest reduction payments 
     contract, and is financed under a State or local program, the 
     Secretary may reduce the rental charge ceiling, but in no 
     case shall the rent be below basic rent. For plans of action 
     approved for capital grants under the Low-Income Housing 
     Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990 or the 
     provisions of the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation 
     Act of 1987, the rental charge for each dwelling unit shall 
     be at the basic rental charge or such greater amount, not 
     exceeding the lower of (i) the fair market rental charge 
     determined pursuant to this paragraph, or (ii) the actual 
     rent paid for a comparable unit in comparable unassisted 
     housing in the market area in which the housing is located, 
     as represents 30 percent of the tenant's adjusted income, but 
     in no case shall the rent be below basic rent.''.

     SEC. 512. PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF GOLD CLAUSES.

       Section 5118(d)(2) of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``This paragraph shall continue to apply to any obligations 
     issued on or before October 27, 1977, notwithstanding any 
     assignment and/or novation of such obligations after such 
     date, unless all parties to the assignment and/or novation 
     specifically agree to include a gold clause in the new 
     agreement.''.

     SEC. 513. MOVING TO WORK DEMONSTRATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this demonstration under this 
     section is to give local housing and management authorities 
     and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development the 
     flexibility to design and test various approaches for 
     providing and administering housing assistance that--
       (1) reduce cost and achieve greater cost effectiveness in 
     Federal expenditures;
       (2) give incentives to families with children where the 
     head of household is working, seeking work, or preparing for 
     work by participating in job training, educational programs, 
     or programs that assist people to obtain employment and 
     become economically self-sufficient; and
       (3) increase housing choices for low-income families.
       (b) Program Authority.--
       (1) Selection of participants.--The Secretary of Housing 
     and Urban Development shall conduct a demonstration program 
     under this section beginning in fiscal year 1997 under which 
     local housing and management authorities (including Indian 
     housing authorities) administering the public or Indian 
     housing program and the choice-based rental assistance 
     program under title III of this Act shall be selected by the 
     Secretary to participate. In first year of the demonstration, 
     the Secretary shall select 100 local housing and management 
     authorities to participate. In each of the next 2 year of the 
     demonstration, the Secretary shall select 100 additional 
     local housing and management authorities per year to 
     participate. During the first year of the demonstration, the 
     Secretary shall select for participation any authority that 
     complies with the requirement under subsection (d) and owns 
     or administers more than 99,999 dwelling units of public 
     housing.
       (2) Training.--The Secretary, in consultation with 
     representatives of public housing interests, shall provide 
     training and technical assistance during the demonstration 
     and conduct detailed evaluations of up to 30 such agencies in 
     an effort to identify replicable program models promoting the 
     purpose of the demonstration.
       (3) Use of housing assistance.--Under the demonstration, 
     notwithstanding any provision of this Act, an authority may 
     combine operating assistance provided under section 9 of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before the 
     date of the enactment of this Act), modernization assistance 
     provided under section 14 of such Act, assistance provided 
     under section 8 of such Act for the certificate and voucher 
     programs, assistance for pubic housing provided under title 
     II of this Act, and choice-based rental assistance provided 
     under title III of this Act, to provide housing assistance 
     for low-income families and services to facilitate the 
     transition to work on such terms and conditions as the 
     authority may propose.
       (c) Application.--An application to participate in the 
     demonstration--
       (1) shall request authority to combine assistance refereed 
     to in subsection (b)(3);
       (2) shall be submitted only after the local housing and 
     management authority provides for citizen participation 
     through a public hearing and, if appropriate, other means;
       (3) shall include a plan developed by the authority that 
     takes into account comments from the public hearing and any 
     other public comments on the proposed program, and comments 
     from current and prospective residents who would be affected, 
     and that includes criteria for--
       (A) establishing a reasonable rent policy, which shall be 
     designed to encourage employment and self-sufficiency by 
     participating families, consistent with the purpose of this 
     demonstration, such as by excluding some or all of a family's 
     earned income for purposes of determining rent; and
       (B) assuring that housing assisted under the demonstration 
     program meets housing quality standards established or 
     approved by the Secretary; and
       (4) may request assistance for training and technical 
     assistance to assist with design of the demonstration and to 
     participate in a detailed evaluation.
       (d) Selection Criteria.--In selecting among applications, 
     the Secretary shall take into account the potential of each 
     authority to plan and carry out a program under the 
     demonstration and other appropriate factors as reasonably 
     determined by the Secretary. An authority shall be eligible 
     to participate in any fiscal year only if the most recent 
     score for the authority under the public housing management 
     assessment program under section 6(j) of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act) is 90 or greater.
       (e) Applicability of Certain Provisions.--
       (1) Section 261 of this Act shall continue to apply to 
     public housing notwithstanding any use of the housing under 
     this demonstration.
       (2) Section 113 of this Act shall apply to housing assisted 
     under the demonstration, other than housing assisted solely 
     due to occupancy by families receiving tenant-based 
     assistance.
       (f) Effect on Program Allocations.--The amount of 
     assistance received under titles II and III by a local 
     housing and management authority participating in the 
     demonstration under this section shall not be diminished by 
     its participation.
       (g) Records, Reports, and Audits.--
       (1) Keeping of records.--Each authority shall keep such 
     records as the Secretary may prescribe as reasonably 
     necessary to disclose the amounts and the disposition of 
     amounts under this demonstration, to ensure compliance with 
     the requirements of this section, and to measure performance.
       (2) Reports.--Each authority shall submit to the Secretary 
     a report, or series of reports, in a form and at a time 
     specified by the Secretary. Each report shall--
       (A) document the use of funds made available under this 
     section;
       (B) provide such data as the Secretary may request to 
     assist the Secretary in assessing the demonstration; and
       (C) describe and analyze the effect of assisted activities 
     in addressing the objectives of this part.
       (3) Access to documents by the secretary.--The Secretary 
     shall have access for the purpose of audit and examination to 
     any books, documents, papers, and records that are pertinent 
     to assistance in connection with, and the requirements of, 
     this section.
       (4) Access to documents by the comptroller general.--The 
     Comptroller General of the United States, or any of the duly 
     authorized representatives of the Comptroller General, shall 
     have access for the purpose of audit and examination to any 
     books, documents, papers, and records that are pertinent to 
     assistance in connection with, and the requirements of, this 
     section.
       (h) Evaluation and Report.--
       (1) Consultation with lhma and family representatives.--In 
     making assessments throughout the demonstration, the 
     Secretary shall consult with representatives of local housing 
     and management authorities and residents.
       (2) Report to congress.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     end of the third year of the

[[Page H4591]]

     demonstration, the Secretary shall submit to the Congress a 
     report evaluating the programs carried out under the 
     demonstration. The report shall also include findings and 
     recommendations for any appropriate legislative action.

     SEC. 514. OCCUPANCY SCREENING AND EVICTIONS FROM FEDERALLY 
                   ASSISTED HOUSING.

       (a) Occupancy Screening.--Section 642 of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13602)--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) General Criteria.--'' before ``In''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(b) Authority to Deny Occupancy for Criminal Offenders.--
     In selecting tenants for occupancy of dwelling units in 
     federally assisted housing, if the owner of such housing 
     determines that an applicant for occupancy in the housing or 
     any member of the applicant's household is or was, during the 
     preceding 3 years, engaged in any activity described in 
     paragraph (2)(C) of section 645, the owner may--
       ``(1) deny such applicant occupancy and consider the 
     applicant (for purposes of any waiting list) as not having 
     applied for such occupancy ; and
       ``(2) after the expiration of the 3-year period beginning 
     upon such activity, require the applicant, as a condition of 
     occupancy in the housing or application for occupancy in the 
     housing, to submit to the owner evidence sufficient (as the 
     Secretary shall by regulation provide) to ensure that the 
     individual or individuals in the applicant's household who 
     engaged in criminal activity for which denial was made under 
     paragraph (1) have not engaged in any criminal activity 
     during such 3-year period.
       ``(c) Authority to Require Access to Criminal Records.--An 
     owner of federally assisted housing may require, as a 
     condition of providing occupancy in a dwelling unit in such 
     housing to an applicant for occupancy and the members of the 
     applicant's household, that each adult member of the 
     household provide the owner with a signed, written 
     authorization for the owner to obtain records described in 
     section 646(a) regarding such member of the household from 
     the National Crime Information Center, police departments, 
     and other law enforcement agencies.
       ``(d) Definition.--For purposes of subsections (b) and (c), 
     the term `federally assisted housing' has the meaning given 
     the term by this title, except that the term does not include 
     housing that only meets the requirements of section 
     683(2)(E).''.
       (b) Termination of Tenancy.--Subtitle C of title VI of the 
     Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 
     13601 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 645. TERMINATION OF TENANCY.

       ``Each lease for a dwelling unit in federally assisted 
     housing (as such term is defined in section 642(d)) shall 
     provide that--
       ``(1) the owner may not terminate the tenancy except for 
     violation of the terms and conditions of the lease, violation 
     of applicable Federal, State, or local law, or other good 
     cause; and
       ``(2) any activity, engaged in by the tenant, any member of 
     the tenant's household, or any guest or other person under 
     the tenant's control, that--
       ``(A) threatens the health or safety of, or right to 
     peaceful enjoyment of the premises by, other tenants or 
     employees of the owner or other manager of the housing,
       ``(B) threatens the health or safety of, or right to 
     peaceful enjoyment of their residences by, persons residing 
     in the immediate vicinity of the premises, or
       ``(C) is criminal activity (including drug-related criminal 
     activity) on or off the premises, shall be cause for 
     termination of tenancy.''.
       (c) Availability of Criminal Records for Tenant Screening 
     and Eviction.--Subtitle C of title VI of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13601 et seq.) 
     is amended adding after section 645 (as added by subsection 
     (b) of this section) the following new section:

     ``SEC. 646. AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Provision of information.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law other than paragraph (2), upon the request 
     of an owner of federally assisted housing, the National Crime 
     Information Center, a police department, and any other law 
     enforcement agency shall provide to the owner of federally 
     assisted housing information regarding the criminal 
     conviction records of an adult applicant for, or tenants of, 
     the federally assisted housing for purposes of applicant 
     screening, lease enforcement, and eviction, but only if the 
     owner requests such information and presents to such Center, 
     department, or agency with a written authorization, signed by 
     such applicant, for the release of such information to such 
     owner.
       ``(2) Exception.--The information provided under paragraph 
     (1) may not include any information regarding any criminal 
     conviction of an applicant or resident for any act (or 
     failure to act) for which the applicant or resident was not 
     treated as an adult under the laws of the convicting 
     jurisdiction.
       ``(b) Confidentiality.--An owner receiving information 
     under this section may use such information only for the 
     purposes provided in this section and such information may 
     not be disclosed to any person who is not an officer or 
     employee of the owner. The Secretary shall, by regulation, 
     establish procedures necessary to ensure that information 
     provided under this section to an owner is used, and 
     confidentiality of such information is maintained, as 
     required under this section.
       ``(c) Opportunity to Dispute.--Before an adverse action is 
     taken with regard to assistance for federally assisted 
     housing on the basis of a criminal record, the owner shall 
     provide the tenant or applicant with a copy of the criminal 
     record and an opportunity to dispute the accuracy and 
     relevance of that record.
       ``(d) Fee.--An owner of federally assisted housing may be 
     charged a reasonable fee for information provided under 
     subsection (a).
       ``(e) Records Management.--Each owner of federally assisted 
     housing that receives criminal record information under this 
     section shall establish and implement a system of records 
     management that ensures that any criminal record received by 
     the owner is--
       ``(1) maintained confidentially;
       ``(2) not misused or improperly disseminated; and
       ``(3) destroyed, once the purpose for which the record was 
     requested has been accomplished.
       ``(f) Penalty.--Any person who knowingly and willfully 
     requests or obtains any information concerning an applicant 
     for, or resident of, federally assisted housing pursuant to 
     the authority under this section under false pretenses, or 
     any person who knowingly and willfully discloses any such 
     information in any manner to any individual not entitled 
     under any law to receive it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor 
     and fined not more than $5,000. The term `person' as used in 
     this subsection shall include an officer or employee of any 
     local housing and management authority.
       ``(g) Civil action.--Any applicant for, or resident of, 
     federally assisted housing affected by (1) a negligent or 
     knowing disclosure of information referred to in this section 
     about such person by an officer or employee of any owner, 
     which disclosure is not authorized by this section, or (2) 
     any other negligent or knowing action that is inconsistent 
     with this section, may bring a civil action for damages and 
     such other relief as may be appropriate against any owner 
     responsible for such unauthorized action. The district court 
     of the United States in the district in which the affected 
     applicant or resident resides, in which such unauthorized 
     action occurred, or in which the officer or employee alleged 
     to be responsible for any such unauthorized action resides, 
     shall have jurisdiction in such matters. Appropriate relief 
     that may be ordered by such district courts shall include 
     reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs.
       ``(h) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       ``(1) Adult.--The term `adult' means a person who is 18 
     years of age or older, or who has been convicted of a crime 
     as an adult under any Federal, State, or tribal law.
       ``(2) Federally assisted housing.--The term `federally 
     assisted housing' has the meaning given the term by this 
     title, except that the term does not include housing that 
     only meets the requirements of section 683(2)(E).''.
       (d) Definitions.--Section 683 of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13643) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``section 3(b) of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937'' and inserting ``section 
     102 of the United States Housing Act of 1996'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting before the semicolon 
     at the end the following; ``(as in effect before the 
     enactment of the United States Housing Act of 1996)'';
       (C) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (D) in subparagraph (G), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (E) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(H) for purposes only of subsections (b) and (c) of 
     sections 642, and section 645 and 646, housing assisted under 
     section 515 of the Housing Act of 1949.'';
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``public housing agency'' 
     and inserting ``local housing and management authority''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Drug-related criminal activity.--The term `drug-
     related criminal activity' means the illegal manufacture, 
     sale, distribution, use, or possession with intent to 
     manufacture, sell, distribute, or use, of a controlled 
     substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled 
     Substances Act).''.
       At the end of the bill, insert the following new title:

   TITLE VI--NATIONAL COMMISSION ON HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS COST

     SEC. 601. ESTABLISHMENT.

       There is established a commission to be known as the 
     National Commission on Housing Assistance Programs Cost (in 
     this title referred to as the ``Commission'').

     SEC. 602. MEMBERSHIP.

       (a) Appointment.--The Commission shall be composed of 9 
     members, who shall be appointed not later than 90 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act. The members shall be 
     as follows:
       (1) 3 members to be appointed by the Secretary of Housing 
     and Urban Development;
       (2) 3 members appointed by the Chairman and Ranking 
     Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Housing Opportunity 
     and Community Development of the Committee

[[Page H4592]]

     on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the 
     Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on 
     VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate; and
       (3) 3 members appointed by the Chairman and Ranking 
     Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community 
     Opportunity of the Committee on Banking and Financial 
     Services of the House of Representatives and the Chairman and 
     Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and 
     Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives.
       (b) Qualifications.--The 3 members of the Commission 
     appointed under each of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of 
     subsection (a)--
       (1) shall all be experts in the field of accounting, 
     economics, cost analysis, finance, or management; and
       (2) shall include--
       (A) 1 individual who is an elected public official at the 
     State or local level;
       (B) 1 individual who is a distinguished academic engaged in 
     teaching or research;
       (C) 1 individual who is a business leader, financial 
     officer, management or accounting expert.

     In selecting members of the Commission for appointment, the 
     individuals appointing shall ensure that the members selected 
     can analyze the Federal assisted housing programs (as such 
     term is defined in section 604(a)) on an objective basis and 
     that no member of the Commission has a personal financial or 
     business interest in any such program.

     SEC. 603. ORGANIZATION.

       (a) Chairperson.--The Commission shall elect a chairperson 
     from among members of the Commission.
       (b) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, 
     but a lesser number may hold hearings.
       (c) Voting.--Each member of the Commission shall be 
     entitled to 1 vote, which shall be equal to the vote of every 
     other member of the Commission.
       (d) Vacancies.--Any vacancy on the Commission shall not 
     affect its powers, but shall be filled in the manner in which 
     the original appointment was made.
       (e) Prohibition on Additional Pay.--Members of the 
     Commission shall serve without compensation.
       (f) Travel Expenses.--Each member shall receive travel 
     expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in 
     accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United 
     States Code.

     SEC. 604. FUNCTIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Commission shall --
       (1) analyze the full cost to the Federal Government, public 
     housing agencies, State and local governments, and other 
     parties, per assisted household, of the Federal assisted 
     housing programs, and shall conduct the analysis on a 
     nationwide and regional basis and in a manner such that 
     accurate per unit cost comparisons may be made between 
     Federal assisted housing programs; and
       (2) estimate the future liability that will be borne by 
     taxpayers as a result of activities under the Federal 
     assisted housing programs before the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``Federal assisted housing programs'' means--
       (1) the public housing program under the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act);
       (2) the public housing program under title II of this Act;
       (3) the certificate program for rental assistance under 
     section 8(b)(1) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as 
     in effect before the date of the enactment of this Act);
       (4) the voucher program for rental assistance under section 
     8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act);
       (5) the programs for project-based assistance under section 
     8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act);
       (6) the rental assistance payments program under section 
     521(a)(2)(A) of the Housing Act of 1949;
       (7) the program for housing for the elderly under section 
     202 of the Housing Act of 1959;
       (8) the program for housing for persons with disabilities 
     under section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National 
     Affordable Housing Act;
       (9) the program for financing housing by a loan or mortgage 
     insured under section 221(d)(3) of the National Housing Act 
     that bears interest at a rate determined under the proviso of 
     section 221(d)(5) of such Act;
       (10) the program under section 236 of the National Housing 
     Act;
       (11) the program for constructed or substantial 
     rehabilitation under section 8(b)(2) of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937, as in effect before October 1, 1983; and
       (12) any other program for housing assistance administered 
     by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development or the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, under which occupancy in the 
     housing assisted or housing assistance provided is based on 
     income, as the Commission may determine.
       (c) Final Report.--Not later than 18 months after the 
     Commission is established pursuant to section 602(a), the 
     Commission shall submit to the Secretary and to the Congress 
     a final report which shall contain the results of the 
     analysis and estimates required under subsection (a).
       (c) Limitation.--The Commission may not make any 
     recommendations regarding Federal housing policy.

     SEC. 605. POWERS.

       (a) Hearings.--The Commission may, for the purpose of 
     carrying out this title, hold such hearings and sit and act 
     at such times and places as the Commission may find 
     advisable.
       (b) Rules and Regulations.--The Commission may adopt such 
     rules and regulations as may be necessary to establish its 
     procedures and to govern the manner of its operations, 
     organization and personnel.
       (c) Assistance From Federal Agencies.--
       (1) Information.--The Commission may request from any 
     department or agency of the United States, and such 
     department or agency shall provide to the Commission in a 
     timely fashion, such data and information as the Commission 
     may require for carrying out this title, including--
       (A) local housing management plans submitted to the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under section 107;
       (B) block grant contracts under title II;
       (C) contracts under section 302 for assistance amounts 
     under title III; and
       (D) audits submitted to the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development under section 403.
       (2) Administrative support.--The General Services 
     Administration shall provide to the Commission, on a 
     reimbursable basis, such administrative support services as 
     the Commission may request.
       (3) Personnel details and technical assistance.--Upon the 
     request of the chairperson of the Commission, the Secretary 
     of Housing and Urban Development shall, to the extent 
     possible and subject to the discretion of the Secretary--
       (A) detail any of the personnel of the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development, on a nonreimbursable basis, to 
     assist the Commission in carrying out its duties under this 
     title; and
       (B) provide the Commission with technical assistance in 
     carrying out its duties under this title.
       (d) Information From Local Housing and Management 
     Authorities.--The Commission shall have access, for the 
     purpose of carrying out its functions under this title, to 
     any books, documents, papers, and records of a local housing 
     and management authority that are pertinent to this Act and 
     assistance received pursuant to this Act.
       (e) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails 
     in the same manner and under the same conditions as other 
     Federal agencies.
       (f) Contracting.--The Commission may, to the extent and in 
     such amounts as are provided in appropriations Acts, enter 
     into contracts necessary to carry out its duties under this 
     title.
       (g) Staff.--
       (1) Executive director.--The Commission shall appoint an 
     executive director of the Commission who shall be compensated 
     at a rate fixed by the Commission, but which shall not exceed 
     the rate established for level V of the Executive Schedule 
     under title 5, United States Code.
       (2) Personnel.--In addition to the executive director, the 
     Commission may appoint and fix the compensation of such 
     personnel as it deems advisable, in accordance with the 
     provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing 
     appointments to the competitive service, and the provisions 
     of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title, 
     relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates.
       (3) Limitation.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be effective 
     only to the extent and in such amounts as are provided in 
     appropriations Acts.
       (4) Selection criteria.--In appointing an executive 
     director and staff, the Commission shall ensure that the 
     individuals appointed can conduct any functions they may have 
     regarding the Federal assisted housing programs (as such term 
     is defined in section 604(a)) on an objective basis and that 
     no such individual has a personal financial or business 
     interest in any such program.
       (h) Advisory Committee.--The Commission shall be considered 
     an advisory committee within the meaning of the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).

     SEC. 606. FUNDING.

       Of any amounts made available for policy, research, and 
     development activities of the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development, there shall be available for carrying out this 
     title $750,000, for fiscal year 1997. Any such amounts so 
     appropriated shall remain available until expended.

     SEC. 607. SUNSET.

       The Commission shall terminate upon the expiration of the 
     18-month period beginning upon the date that the Commission 
     is established pursuant to section 602(a).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Lazio] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 5 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] rise in 
opposition?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts will be recognized for 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio].

[[Page H4593]]

  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], who has been exceptionally 
important, a great advocate for people in need in public assisted 
housing.
  Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentleman from New York very much for 
including my bill in the manager's amendment.
  We call it ``one strike and you are out, part two,'' because what it 
does is to extend the provisions that were cast earlier and President 
Clinton signed into law with a great deal of support from the White 
House to enable us to evict drug and alcohol abusers and those that are 
engaged in criminal activity from all types of federally subsidized 
housing.
  Fot too long, drug dealers and other criminals have found a haven in 
low-income housing projects, and although the 1990 act makes some 
progress in the public housing area, it did not apply to all subsidized 
housing.
  This manager's amendment closes the most egregious loophole in public 
housing. It grants public housing authorities and private owners of 
Section 8 properties new powers to screen and evict problem tenants.
  As my colleagues know, there are 1.4 million public housing units, 
while there are 2.1 million section 8 publicly assisted housing units, 
and the fact is that residents of project 8, section 8 and FHA-insured 
multifamily housing have had virtually no protection from drug dealers 
that live next door and threaten their health and safety on a daily 
basis. They deserve equal protection under the law.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are going to do with this legislation is to see 
to it that drug dealers will be subject to eviction from public housing 
whenever they deal their drugs and wherever they deal their drugs, but 
it will also enable managers of section 8 properties to effectively 
screen prospective tenants before those tenants are involved in drug 
dealing or criminal activity. It is a lot easier if we can keep them 
out of subsidized housing than waiting until they commit crimes.
  Section 8 managers will be able to conduct criminal background checks 
and match an applicant's name against information from the National 
Crime Information Center.
  We have got a long waiting list of people that deserve subsidized 
housing and very much need it. We cannot afford to be giving housing 
units to people who terrorize their neighbors. This manager's amendment 
will put an end to that practice.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the manager's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not that I oppose everything in the manager's 
amendment, and there are a number of provisions within it that I would 
support. I do believe, however, there are provisions that are contained 
in the amendment which simply are wholesale changes in existing law 
which I was unaware were even included in this as of 9 o'clock last 
evening. Those range from an exemption to the Brooke amendment for over 
300 public housing authorities, including the specifically mentioned, 
for some reason, which the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] has 
informed me from New York City that the mayor of New York was 
completely unaware of providing for, regardless of whether or not the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] which 
would maintain the Brooke amendment as it is currently constituted into 
current law, regardless of whether or not the Frank of Massachusetts 
amendment passes.
  This would exempt 300 public housing authorities that meet certain 
criteria that I do not know. Those public housing authorities would be 
able to wholesale throw out tremendous numbers of poor people simply 
because they have attained some standard by which the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Lazio] believes means they are doing a good job.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the 
manager's amendment, which we did not get much time to look at, instead 
did an excellent job of analyzing it, the manager's amendment does two 
things. First of all, it does a revised version of the Brooke 
amendment, and then it exempts people from its own revised version. So 
the amendment, in fact, contains both the revision and an exemption 
from its own revision as I understand it.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, it is always good to have 
the gentleman from Massachusetts around to explain things.
  But the truth of the matter is that, in addition to the Brooke 
amendment changes that I think are very detrimental to the vulnerable 
people, and particularly to the working poor of this country, the bill 
also contains some kind of self-sufficiency contract which I have come 
to know as the PIP, the personal improvement program.
  Now, that personal improvement plan is evidently supposed to be filed 
by every resident of public housing to be then; I guess maybe the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] is going to review each one of 
these PIP's, and once those PIP's are reviewed and they pass whatever 
standard Mr. Lazio has in mind, then we are going to determine whether 
or not the individual in public housing has actually achieved the goals 
that they have set out. If they have not achieved those goals, then 
they can be thrown out of public housing.
  Mr. Chairman, I have not heard anything so patently ridiculous in all 
the years that I have served in the Congress of the United States. What 
are we doing? We are turning ourselves into some sort of big-brother 
organization which determines whether or not, and I would like to see 
every Member of this House submit a PIP and see whether or not they 
could adhere to all the standards that we set for ourselves, I would 
like to see every member of the Housing Committee set those standards 
for themselves, before we start asking people in public housing to set 
those standards.
  Third, there is some provision that got in here. Evidently somebody 
in the Congress has a particular interest in some GSA surplus property. 
Evidently that particular individual is concerned about having homeless 
people come next door because of a provision which says that when there 
is excess GSA property, that should go to homeless organizations as a 
first choice. That is going to be changed without ever having a hearing 
about it, without ever deciding what is good for it. That is going to 
be changed to allow this particular individual to have some kind of 
other organizations move in next to his particular home.
  Now, I do not know that this is an appropriate place for us to be 
providing specific provisions like that for particular Members of 
Congress. I personally am outraged that those kinds of provisions are 
snuck into a manager's amendment, never discussed with me. As I 
understand the way the manager's amendment is supposed to work, is 
these are supposed to be technical and conforming changes that the two 
of us negotiate and agree upon that create a consensus as to where we 
can improve the bill. That was not done in this case.
  And I recognize that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] has had 
a very difficult job, and I once again want to compliment him on a 
number of provisions that are contained in this bill. I say to the 
gentleman, Rick, there are many provisions that I think are important 
changes that give local housing authorities the kind of flexibility 
that both of us believe that they need in order to get rid of some of 
these terrible housing projects and to allow the Secretary to get rid 
of very badly run public housing authorities. But we go too far in 
eliminating Brooke, we go too far in vouchering out, we go too far in 
these PIP programs, and we go too far in providing for individual 
Member of Congress' own backyard.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I know we all want the same things, but we all have not 
done the same things to help people who are the poorest of the poor who 
are living in public housing. It was not this majority that imposed the 
one-for-one requirement which said that we cannot demolish the most 
dilapidated buildings in public housing, and we force

[[Page H4594]]

communities to live in the shadows of crime, many cases crime-ridden 
structures with broken windows that are falling apart. It was not this 
majority who said frankly that there should be no home ownership 
opportunities for people that will have vouchers, but we are beginning 
the process of moving in the other direction, and this amendment does 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, there cannot be any larger philosophical divide between 
the gentleman from Massachusetts and the other side of the aisle than 
the self-sufficiency, the tenant self-sufficiency contract.
  In our amendment, Mr. Chairman, we say that somebody who comes into 
public housing enters into a contract with those people who are 
supervising that housing authority. Now, that may, in fact, be a not-
for-profit, it may be for a for-profit, it may be the housing 
authority, but we say the tenant enters into a contract which says 
these are the things that I will do to transition myself back into the 
marketplace, these are the things that I will take advantage of, be it 
worker training or educational possibilities.
  We can no longer say that it is a one-way street, that we are going 
to give people the opportunity to live in public assisted housing and 
expect them to do nothing in return, including improving their own lot 
when there are opportunities for that to happen.
  This is not punitive, and, in fact, there is an escape valve here to 
say if someone has changed circumstances, contrary to what the 
gentleman would say, that that would be taken into consideration. 
Nobody would be thrown out because of this, but it begins the process 
of having people think about what they need to do to transition back 
into the marketplace.
  We create a number of home ownership opportunities in this 
legislation, Mr. Chairman, including the possibility that a resident in 
public housing can purchase their own unit. Yes, we give that person 
the opportunity to do that. We value home ownership.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I understood that we had 
5 minutes per side. When I heard the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Moran], I just assumed that we have gone over, well over, the 5-minute 
allocation if we take into account Mr. Moran.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia utilized 2 minutes. There 
were 3 minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York is utilizing his 
3 minutes at this point.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I hope the gentleman is as generous 
with the 3 minutes with our side.
  The CHAIRMAN. All indications are that they are being totally fair.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. In this amendment Mr. Chairman, we protect 
seniors, we protect the disabled, we protect the poorest of the poor, 
and we remove the job-killing Brooke amendment. We allow an out for 
minimum rents for people who have hardship exemptions, but we believe 
that everybody should pay something, whether it is $25 or $30 or $35.
  We target our resources so that people who use vouchers, half of all 
the people who use vouchers, will be people who make under 60 percent 
of median income, again the poorest of the poor. We say that 30 percent 
of the units in public housing must go to people who have incomes below 
30 percent of median income. Again, we insure that there are units for 
the poorest of the poor, but we also say, Mr. Chairman, that we need to 
create an environment of hope with role models where people can 
transition back to the marketplace where they can make their own 
choices for housing.
  I ask for support for this amendment.

                              {time}  1745

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``United 
     States Housing Act of 1996''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Declaration of policy to renew American neighborhoods.

                      TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 101. Statement of purpose.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
Sec. 103. Organization of local housing and management authorities.
Sec. 104. Determination of adjusted income.
Sec. 105. Limitation on admission of drug or alcohol abusers to 
              assisted housing.
Sec. 106. Community work and family self-sufficiency requirement.
Sec. 107. Local housing management plans.
Sec. 108. Review of plans.
Sec. 109. Pet ownership.
Sec. 110. Administrative grievance procedure.
Sec. 111. Headquarters reserve fund.
Sec. 112. Labor standards.
Sec. 113. Nondiscrimination.
Sec. 114. Effective date and regulations.

                        TITLE II--PUBLIC HOUSING

                        Subtitle A--Block Grants

Sec. 201. Block grant contracts.
Sec. 202. Block grant authority and amount.
Sec. 203. Eligible and required activities.
Sec. 204. Determination of block grant allocation.
Sec. 205. Sanctions for improper use of amounts.

           Subtitle B--Admissions and Occupancy Requirements

Sec. 221. Low-income housing requirement.
Sec. 222. Family eligibility.
Sec. 223. Preferences for occupancy.
Sec. 224. Admission procedures.
Sec. 225. Family rental payment.
Sec. 226. Lease requirements.
Sec. 227. Designated housing for elderly and disabled families.

                         Subtitle C--Management

Sec. 231. Management procedures.
Sec. 232. Housing quality requirements.
Sec. 233. Employment of residents.
Sec. 234. Resident councils and resident management corporations.
Sec. 235. Management by resident management corporation.
Sec. 236. Transfer of management of certain housing to independent 
              manager at request of residents.
Sec. 237. Resident opportunity program.

                       Subtitle D--Homeownership

Sec. 251. Resident homeownership programs.

Subtitle E--Disposition, Demolition, and Revitalization of Developments

Sec. 261. Requirements for demolition and disposition of developments.
Sec. 262. Demolition, site revitalization, replacement housing, and 
              choice-based assistance grants for developments.

                     Subtitle F--General Provisions

Sec. 271. Conversion to block grant assistance.
Sec. 272. Payment of non-Federal share.
Sec. 273. Definitions.
Sec. 274. Authorization of appropriations for block grants.
Sec. 275. Authorization of appropriations for operation safe home.

TITLE III--CHOICE-BASED RENTAL HOUSING AND HOMEOWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE FOR 
                          LOW-INCOME FAMILIES

                         Subtitle A--Allocation

Sec. 301. Authority to provide housing assistance amounts.
Sec. 302. Contracts with LHMA's.
Sec. 303. Eligibility of LHMA's for assistance amounts.
Sec. 304. Allocation of amounts.
Sec. 305. Administrative fees.
Sec. 306. Authorizations of appropriations.
Sec. 307. Conversion of section 8 assistance.

   Subtitle B--Choice-Based Housing Assistance for Eligible Families

Sec. 321. Eligible families and preferences for assistance.
Sec. 322. Resident contribution.
Sec. 323. Rental indicators.
Sec. 324. Lease terms.
Sec. 325. Termination of tenancy.
Sec. 326. Eligible owners.
Sec. 327. Selection of dwelling units.
Sec. 328. Eligible dwelling units.
Sec. 329. Homeownership option.

    Subtitle C--Payment of Housing Assistance on Behalf of Assisted 
                                Families

Sec. 351. Housing assistance payments contracts.
Sec. 352. Amount of monthly assistance payment.
Sec. 353. Payment standards.
Sec. 354. Reasonable rents.
Sec. 355. Prohibition of assistance for vacant rental units.

            Subtitle D--General and Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec. 372. Definitions.
Sec. 372. Rental assistance fraud recoveries.
Sec. 373. Study regarding geographic concentration of assisted 
              families.

 TITLE IV--ACCREDITATION AND OVERSIGHT OF LOCAL HOUSING AND MANAGEMENT 
                              AUTHORITIES

         Subtitle A--Housing Foundation and Accreditation Board

Sec. 401. Establishment.
Sec. 402. Membership.

[[Page H4595]]

Sec. 403. Functions.
Sec. 404. Initial establishment of standards and procedures for LHMA 
              compliance.
Sec. 405. Powers.
Sec. 406. Fees.
Sec. Reports.

   Subtitle B--Accreditation and Oversight Standards and Procedures.

Sec. 431. Establishment of performance benchmarks and accreditation 
              procedures.
Sec. 432. Annual financial and performance audit.
Sec. 433. Accreditation.
Sec. 434. Classification by performance category.
Sec. 435. Performance agreements for authorities at risk of becoming 
              troubled.
Sec. 436. Performance agreements and CDBG sanctions for troubled 
              LHMA's.
Sec. 437. Option to demand conveyance of title to, or possession of, 
              public housing.
Sec. 438. Removal of ineffective LHMA's.
Sec. 439. Mandatory takeover of chronically troubled PHA's.
Sec. 440. Treatment of troubled PHA's
Sec. 441. Maintenance of and access to records.
Sec. 442. Annual reports regarding troubled LHMA's.
Sec. 443. Applicability to resident management corporations.
Sec. 444. Inapplicability to Indian housing.

               TITLE V--REPEALS AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS

Sec. 501. Repeals.
Sec. 502. Conforming and technical provisions.
Sec. 503. Amendments to Public and Assisted Housing Drug Elimination 
              Act of 1990.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 2.
  The text of section 2 is as follows:

     SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF POLICY TO RENEW AMERICAN 
                   NEIGHBORHOODS.

       The Congress hereby declares that--
       (1) the Federal Government has a responsibility to promote 
     the general welfare of the Nation--
       (A) by using Federal resources to aid families and 
     individuals seeking affordable homes that are safe, clean, 
     and healthy and, in particular, assisting responsible, 
     deserving citizens who cannot provide fully for themselves 
     because of temporary circumstances or factors beyond their 
     control;
       (B) by working to ensure a thriving national economy and a 
     strong private housing market; and
       (C) by developing effective partnerships among the Federal 
     Government, State and local governments, and private entities 
     that allow government to accept responsibility for fostering 
     the development of a healthy marketplace and allow families 
     to prosper without government involvement in their day-to-day 
     activities;
       (2) the Federal Government cannot through its direct action 
     or involvement provide for the housing of every American 
     citizen, or even a majority of its citizens, but it is the 
     responsibility of the Government to promote and protect the 
     independent and collective actions of private citizens to 
     develop housing and strengthen their own neighborhoods;
       (3) the Federal Government should act only where there is a 
     serious need that private citizens or groups cannot or are 
     not addressing responsibly; and
       (4) housing is a fundamental and necessary component of 
     bringing true opportunity to people and communities in need, 
     but providing physical structures to house low-income 
     families will not be itself pull generations up from poverty.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2?


         amendment no. 43 offered by mr. watt of north carolina

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 43 offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina: 
     Page 5, strike line 20 and all that follows through page 6, 
     line 2, and insert the following new paragraphs:
       (2) it is a goal of our Nation that all citizens have 
     decent and affordable housing;
       (3) our Nation should promote the goal of providing decent 
     and affordable housing for all citizens through the efforts 
     and encouragement of Federal, State, and local governments 
     and by promoting and protecting the independent and 
     collective actions of private citizens, organizations, and 
     the private sector to develop housing and strengthen their 
     own neighborhoods;
       Page 6, line 3, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''.
       Page 6, line 3, strike ``should act only'' and insert ``has 
     a responsibility to act''.
       Page 6, line 6, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to try to frame what 
this debate is about through the process of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the characterization that the 
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], 
made about this bill being a dramatic change in housing policy in this 
country. I want to make sure that my colleagues understand just how 
dramatic that change is. I want to spend a minute or two talking about 
the historical housing policy of this country.
  Mr. Chairman, the Housing Act that we are repealing under this bill 
today is the Housing Act of 1937. It started with a declaration of 
policy which says that it will be our policy as a government to try to 
remedy the unsafe and unsanitary housing conditions and the acute 
shortage of decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings for families of lower 
income. That statement of Federal housing policy was changed in 1949, 
almost 50 years ago.
  In 1949, the housing policy was changed to state that it would be the 
policy of our Government to try to assure the realization as soon as 
feasible of the goal of a decent home and a suitable living environment 
for every American family. From that goal statement has come the term 
that has controlled the Federal housing policy of our country to 
provide decent and affordable housing to every American citizen for the 
last 50 years.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues are going to say the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Watt], is making much ado about nothing. But I want 
everybody to understand what his bill says the policy of the Federal 
Government for housing should be. This is what the bill says in the 
very beginning of the bill: ``The Federal Government cannot, through 
its direct action or involvement, provide for the housing of every 
American citizen, or even a majority of its citizens;'' a dramatic 
departure, a dramatic departure from the goal of providing decent and 
affordable housing for every American citizen.
  When we talk about this being a dramatic change in policy, it says it 
from the very beginning of this bill, it is a dramatic change in 
policy, because we are conceding as a Nation that we no longer even 
have as a goal providing decent housing for our citizens. The bill 
itself says we do not even have that as a goal anymore.
  My amendment, Mr. Chairman, simply changes that policy statement. It 
does not do anything to the substance of the bill, but it is an 
abomination. We should be ashamed of ourselves as a Congress to say to 
the American people that we are abandoning the goal, the dream of 
providing decent and affordable housing to every American citizen in 
our country.
  Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues are willing to support that, what it 
says to me is that they are the extreme that everybody has worried 
about. They are defining as a policy, do anything that is okay. Mr. 
Chairman, this is serious, serious business, because we are about 
making a major reversal in the goals and objectives and desires of our 
Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this simple amendment. 
It simply restores the objective in this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Watt] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Watt  of North Carolina was allowed to 
proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, it simply says our Nation 
should promote the goal of providing decent and affordable housing for 
all citizens through the efforts and encouragement of Federal, State, 
and local governments, and by promoting and protecting the independent 
and collective actions of private citizens, organizations, and the 
private sector to develop housing and strengthen their own 
neighborhoods, a simple goal statement.
  Mr. Chairman, that is what this Government should be about. Please 
support this simple amendment.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman just mentioned that we ought to be 
ashamed. He is right. Some of us ought to be ashamed. We ought to be 
ashamed for tolerating this failure, not for the last year or two, but 
for 20 years. That is something to be ashamed of.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the state of public housing in this Nation. Are 
we proud of that, or is that something we are ashamed of? This body 
under the last majority did nothing about it.

[[Page H4596]]

They did not take this building down. It could not even take this 
building down, because the last majority said you cannot take this 
building down because of the fact that you have no money, unless you 
build another one in its place. These are buildings. So this hulk has 
scarred this neighborhood for years in New Orleans. This is New 
Orleans. The one I was referring to, they received a 27 score out of 
100, the bottom of the barrel of the top 40 housing authorities in the 
Nation. That is the failure we have been tolerating.
  Part of the reason we have been tolerating that is because we have 
deluded ourselves that this is somehow compassionate. Is that 
compassionate, I ask the Chairman? Is that compassionate? I would say, 
Mr. Chairman, it is compassionate when we begin to form partnerships, 
when people in communities understand what is going on; not when HUD 
comes in and throws a couple million dollars into an area and says, 
gee, we have done something important.
  They have not done something important, Mr. Chairman, when they have 
not addressed issues like the other problems the neighborhood has, 
including economic development and job creation, having mixed incomes, 
ensuring that you have an environment where people can transition back 
into the marketplace. This is what we ought to be ashamed of, not the 
language that is in this bill, that we ought to be proud of.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want the gentleman to 
explain to me, if this is the kind of housing that we have with a goal 
of providing decent and affordable housing, what kind of housing does 
the gentleman think we will have if we have no goal, and we do not even 
have a policy statement on the issue?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, under this 
bill we will not have buildings and hulks like that in neighborhoods 
anymore, scarring our communities. They will come down, and the people 
in those places that we purport to have compassion for will be given 
vouchers so they can make choices on their own and move to a decent 
place, so children can be raised in a decent place, not being raised in 
an area where children cannot play outside because there is nowhere for 
them to play. That is how certain people in this Chamber measure 
compassion. I reject that, and this bill rejects that.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. If the gentleman will continue to yield, 
I would ask the gentleman, is my statement of purposes and goal as an 
American inconsistent with what you are saying? Why would the gentleman 
not incorporate my amendment into his manager's amendment as a 
statement of goal?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would 
first of all not suggest that the gentleman in any of his ideas or 
opinions on the floor of this House, who I have a great deal of respect 
for, is un-American in any way. I want to make that clear.
  Second of all, I respectfully disagree with the gentleman. I think we 
have hit the mark on this. This is the right statement of purpose. We 
do talk about the fact that the Federal Government cannot do it alone. 
I would tell the gentleman, we cannot do it alone. We are meeting the 
needs of only one out of every four people who are otherwise eligible 
for affordable housing in this country. Let me tell the Members, of the 
one in four who are lucky enough to be in the lottery to get public 
housing, they are living in conditions where they cannot get themselves 
out, they cannot revert back to a good environment, their children 
cannot be raised in an environment where they can get a good quality of 
education and get a good job.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield, I see no statement of that objective in this bill 
anywhere, Mr. Chairman. When the gentleman says that the Federal 
Government will not provide for the housing of every American citizen 
or even a majority of its citizens, the gentleman is abandoning the 
goal that we have set for 50 years in this country, and that is an 
extreme measure on the gentleman's part, just like the rest of his 
party.

  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the only 
thing that is extreme is some of the things that are being said and the 
way some people here are measuring compassion, which is to concentrate 
poverty and condemn people to another 40 years of terrible 
circumstances.
  In the statement of purpose, I would say to the gentleman, it says, 
and I read from page 5:

       The Federal Government has a responsibility to promote the 
     general welfare of the Nation by using Federal resources to 
     aid families and individuals seeking affordable homes that 
     are safe, clean, and healthy.

  What is radical or extreme about that? I know that is the mantra from 
the other side of the aisle, when analysis will not do, but I will tell 
the Chairman that in fact we have hit the mark on this. We are going to 
break the mold. We are not going to tolerate failure anymore. We are 
going to give people a decent place to live.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with some of the rhetoric that we have 
just heard from the other side and the picture that the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Lazio] held up. The truth of the matter is that if we 
look at what has actually occurred in terms of housing legislation, a 
change in the one-for-one rule, which is what Chairman Lazio identified 
in his earlier remarks, prevents the demolition of the very housing 
project that he was identifying, was passed by a Democratic Congress in 
1994. I served on the committee that passed that legislation. It passed 
the House of Representatives. It was defeated by Phil Gramm in the U.S. 
Senate in the last dying days of the Congress, because he did not want 
to give a victory to the Democrats running the House of Representatives 
in the Senate of the United States. That is the truth of how one-for-
one died.
  Mr. Chairman, if we look at what has already been provided the 
Secretary, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development has, by the 
end of this year, demolished 24,000 units of public housing. It was 
Jack Kemp that stood up and said that he did not want to be the 
Secretary of Demolition. The truth of the matter is that there is 
flexibility built into the law.

  I support and many of my friends, a lot of others here, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, Barney Frank, and a lot of us, support the ability 
of getting rid of the really badly run housing and taking authority 
away from the really bad housing authorities.

                              {time}  1800

  What we are talking about is the language of the Watt amendment, 
which says that we should have a goal of providing affordable housing 
for the people of this country.
  It is amazing to me to sit here in the Congress of the United States 
and say to one another that we believe that we cannot accomplish those 
goals. Of course this is a Nation of goals. That is how we built 
ourselves up. We are not going to attain it next year, but we can 
certainly lay ourselves out goals that we can all fight for and have 
the drive and the energy to try and hope one day that we can 
accomplish.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend from North Carolina, Mr. Watt.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I just want to make it absolutely clear that the statement of 
purpose, the goals for which I am substituting in this amendment 
contemplate partnerships, public and private. It contemplates 
everything that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] has said is 
important to him. But it makes explicit also that we are not abandoning 
the goal that we have had for housing in this country, not even public 
housing, just housing in general, decent and affordable housing.
  We have had that goal for 50 years, and all of a sudden these new 
breed come in here and they think there is something magic about their 
new philosophy and we ought to abandon everything, which is just 
extreme.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment of the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Watt]. I think it is fundamentally a good amendment. I 
think that in 1949 and in 1996 we obviously agree that the Federal 
Government has

[[Page H4597]]

never made the commitment to provide all of the housing for low-income 
Americans, and the fact is that we should not abandon that goal.
  I would say that the difficulty in reaching that goal today has been 
greatly increased by the disparities of incomes that exist in our 
society. Today we simply have more economic casualties than we have had 
before, in terms of people not making it in terms of affordable 
housing. We need to do something about that.
  I think that the idea that the gentleman from New York has expressed 
with regard to partnerships and communities working together is good, 
and I think that the changes we talked about, one-to-one replacement, 
one-to-one replacement was a good idea, but what has failed here is 
that local communities did not have the resources.
  Once we built public housing or assisted housing and put it in place, 
we wanted local communities to keep that commitment. That is what that 
was all about. I do not think that anyone ever intended that we would 
have buildings standing that basically were vacant, that were causing 
and attracting problems. But the fact is that some years ago that issue 
was recognized as a problem. It has been addressed, and so I do not 
think it is a bad thing.
  I would certainly concur with the amendment of the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Watt] to keep in place the goal of safe and 
sanitary housing, to keep in place the 1937 and 1949 goals that have 
been consistently a part of every commitment made by this Congress in 
terms of safe and affordable housing for people.
  I might just add that in the context of this authorization and 
housing preamble debate, very often it was referred to that local 
housing management authorities that are designated under this bill for 
significant responsibilities were somehow going to solve all the 
problems. Well, it is local housing authorities, frankly, Mr. Chairman, 
that have indeed been the problem, the failure or inability of some 
local housing and redevelopment authorities.
  In this bill, with the accreditation and the troubled projects, what 
happened with the troubled projects--the local housing authorities that 
cannot make it, that do not get accredited, that in fact are not being 
operated properly--is that HUD has to take them over. That is basically 
and fundamentally what this bill does. It passes those problems back to 
HUD.
  The issue that somehow the change here, if we have capable and local 
housing authorities, they are going to operate correctly, they are 
going to be able to accept these responsibilities, in fact, Mr. 
Chairman and the chairman of our subcommittee, I wanted to just point 
out to my colleagues that St. Paul, the district I represent, has just 
been recognized as having the No. 1 housing authority in the Nation, 
St. Paul, MN.
  So the fact is that very often I think we are painting a picture here 
of the 3,400 housing authorities that do not function very well. Well, 
I would invite any of my colleagues to come to my district in St. Paul, 
MN and take a look at the thousands of people that are being housed in 
real quality public housing and in quality senior citizen high-rises 
that are serving people well.
  The problem in my community is not the public housing. It is the 
private housing, the overcrowding that is associated with the private 
multifamily dwellings in my area.
  So I would just point out to you that the effect of what this bill 
does in your proposal is that it does not necessarily take that problem 
away from HUD. In fact, it specifically directs and gives them 
tremendous responsibility as they have today to try to deal with those 
problems where we have troubled housing projects, and we have many of 
them in the country.
  I would suggest that many of the changes made to the bill have some 
value, but some of them are very, very problematic in the sense that we 
are talking about income levels and the rent changes and the 
concentration of poverty that has occurred in public housing.
  After all, it was the early 1980's under then-President Reagan when 
there was an insistence upon focusing in public housing the poorest of 
the poor. Up until that particular point we did not have that serry a 
concentration, but it was exactly that particular point in time and 
that came about for a variety of reasons.
  One of them was the increase in the incidence of homelessness, 
deinstitutionalization. Others were the insistence that we only ought 
to be serving the lowest income persons in public housing because, as I 
said earlier in my statements on the floor, there are 1.3 million 
families in public housing but there are 13 million that qualify for it 
in 1996. We are only dealing with 10 percent.
  So naturally anyone who would suggest that the Federal Government can 
take of the entire problem is out of touch with the numbers and where 
the responsibility lies. But the Federal Government has a key role, an 
important role. I think maintaining and embracing the goals of the 1937 
or 1949 law are simply a core value of what the American people believe 
in terms of the Federal Government. Not that we can do it alone, but we 
certainly should not abandon that particular goal expressed in the 
basic public housing charter for this and other concerns.
  Mr. Chairman, I continue to express my deep concern regarding the 
direction in which the public and assisted housing policy and 
legislation before the House is going. At a time when 5.3 million 
American renters have worst case housing needs, the very purpose of 
H.R. 2406 alters a long-standing goal of housing policy in this 
Nation--section 2 of the Housing Act of 1949 states:

       The Congress hereby declares that the general welfare and 
     security of the Nation and the health and living standards of 
     its people require housing production and related community 
     development sufficient to remedy the serious housing 
     shortage, the elimination of substandard and other inadequate 
     housing through the clearance of slums and blighted areas, 
     and the realization as soon as feasible of the goal of a 
     decent home and a suitable living environment for every 
     American family.

  Several laws since 1949 have reaffirmed the national goal that every 
American be able to afford a decent home in a suitable environment. The 
measure we consider today proposes to change that goal, that 
commitment.
  While this bill does state that the Federal Government has a 
responsibility to promote the general welfare and to use its resources 
to aid families seeking affordable homes, section 2 goes on to state 
clearly that the Federal Government ``cannot * * * provide for the 
housing of every American citizen, or even a majority of its 
citizens''. Is this a stroke of candor--a ``can't do'' statement, or is 
it a lack of will--a ``won't do'' policy?
  This legislation does make some positive changes to public housing 
and federally assisted housing programs. And I would hasten to point 
out I'm in favor of fixing what is broken in public housing policy. I 
hear and understand the concerns that public housing authorities have 
that inadequate subsidies and rigid policies cause them to seek more 
flexibility; that we need more of an income mix of families in public 
housing; that we must encourage, not discourage, work. However, on the 
main this measure takes a theme and frankly makes it extreme. It 
weakens the basic safety net that the Federal Government has provided 
through the conduit of public and private Federally assisted housing to 
a point that I think is critically wrong.
  In the late 1970's and the early 1980's, our laws and policies turned 
a trickle of housing and social problems into a waterfall in terms of 
homelessness in this country the with deinstitutionalization of 
disabled persons without the promised funding and support--and 
homelessness that has occurred because of the housing cost increases in 
almost every area of our Nation.
  Unless the policy path in this bill changes, unless we limit the 
percentage of income that tenants--families, seniors, and the 
disabled--pay to no more than 30 percent, unless we restore meaningful 
income targeting to low and very-low income people along with adequate 
Federal subsidies that make that possible, I believe that in ten years 
or so, we will look back at the U.S. Housing Act of 1996 as another 
policy which drove American families onto the streets and byways across 
this Nation. These small changes in rent and targeting have a 
significant impact on people and families in public housing and on 
section 8. People will be vulnerable and will be pushed into an 
indefensible situation of homelessness. We can and should do better 
than this measure.
  Mr. Chairman, today amendments will be offered by several Members to 
improve this bill--and I urge my colleague to give careful 
consideration and support the Frank-Gutierrez amendment restoring the 
Brooke protections and the Kennedy amendments on targeting. I will 
offer an amendment myself that will halt the termination of the current 
successful drug elimination program in public and assisted housing by 
extending the program as revised to address all criminal prevention 
activities in

[[Page H4598]]

and around public and assisted housing--a good amendment which helps 
retain existing public housing's livability.
  Mr. Chairman, unless this bill is modified to reflect the reality of 
housing needs and the undeniable necessity of a strong Federal 
commitment to housing, I would have to urge my colleagues to oppose 
H.R. 2406.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an interesting argument, but I think we would 
all agree that the public housing situation in the United States needs 
to be addressed, and I hope before it is done we can sort through these 
amendments and make sure that we are indeed addressing those things 
which are good and agreeing upon that so we can come up with a good 
piece of legislation.
  With that, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], the 
chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that there are some people who want to 
hang on to a failed past and who are unwilling to admit that the 
policies that have largely been promulgated in this body have led to 
that failure.
  Mr. Chairman, it was not, as I say, this majority who imposed the 
one-for-one requirement which has assured over the many years that 
hulks of buildings, in many cases completely vacant, drug-infested and 
crime-infested, cannot come down.
  There were 40 years in which the Democratic Party was in control of 
this House, Mr. Chairman, 40 years. Part of those years, back 15 years 
ago, the one-for-one provision was inserted. In none of those years 
afterward was it repealed, even though we knew it was a failure.
  It was the last majority, to correct the record, Mr. Chairman, that 
imposed Federal preferences that have led to the concentration of the 
poorest of the poor, that have trapped people in poverty, that have 
denied them the ability to have role models, that have eliminated the 
possibility of mixed income, and that in fact have created an 
environment where it is impossible to transition back into the 
marketplace.
  It was the last majority, Mr. Chairman, not this majority, in sum, 
that helped create the mess that we are in now. We are now in the 
process of moving past the past and reclaiming our heritage, at the 
same time moving toward the 21st century.
  We are moving forward because we believe in giving hope and we 
believe in giving opportunity to people and we believe in giving 
choices to people. We believe in giving them the opportunity to buy 
their own home. We believe in the opportunity for them to have 
entrepreneurial activity and keep the fruits of their labor. We believe 
in that element of freedom. We believe in local control. We believe in 
partnerships.
  We are here to say that the day in which the Federal Government can 
do it all is over. We are here to say that we are not going to turn our 
back on millions of Americans who are trapped in these public and 
subsidized housing projects because it is politically feasible to do 
that.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I just want to know whether 
the gentleman has read my amendment or not.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I have.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Because this amendment acknowledges 
everything the gentleman has said. I do not understand why he is 
fighting this amendment. This amendment should have been in the 
manager's amendment. Surely you are not saying that setting a goal of 
providing decent and affordable housing to the American people should 
not be something that ought to be in every housing bill that we have.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time and I yield to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], so that he may respond.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. What I am saying is that the gentleman's attempt to strike 
out language which basically deletes the fact that the Federal 
Government cannot do it all, which is exactly the language that you are 
striking out, goes to the heart of this mission. The mission is to 
build community partnerships, not for HUD, not for this Congress to 
impose this one-size-fits-all, centralized Washington-based model so 
that somebody in Albuquerque has to live by the same rules as somebody 
in Babylon, NY, some resident in New York City has to live by the same 
rules of some people down in Louisiana or Florida.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I will yield, yes.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is focusing 
on what I struck out of the bill, but he needs to focus on what I put 
back in the bill, because I put a lot of his very language back in the 
bill. We are encouraging the obtaining of this goal by encouragement of 
the Federal, State and local governments, by promoting and protecting 
the independent and collective actions of private citizens, 
organizations and the private sector, the very same things the 
gentleman has said.
  I did not take these things out and not put them back in. They are in 
this amendment, and I am encouraging the gentleman to read my amendment 
and agree to it.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] dug 
himself a hole he did not have to dig. His speech was a great speech, 
but it had nothing to do with the amendment of the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  As I understand the Watt amendment, it says very simply, ``It is a 
goal of our Nation that all citizens have decent and affordable 
housing.'' Am I correct?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
  Mr. SANDERS. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] spoke of 
demolition of housing, the role of the private sector. He spoke about a 
lot of things, but he did not speak about the Watt amendment. The 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] did not tell us how we can 
achieve the goal. He did not explicitly tell us the role of the private 
sector or the public sector. All that he said is that ``It is a goal of 
our Nation that all citizens have decent and affordable housing.''
  It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that increasingly we are becoming a 
divided nation. On one hand, we have CEO's of major corporations who 
are making 200 times what their workers are making. We have people at 
the top who are seeing incomes that have never been seen in the history 
of this country. We are seeing a growing divide between the rich and 
the poor.
  We can have a whole lot of differences regarding the role of 
government, but I would hope that every Member of this body agrees that 
all Americans should have decent and affordable housing. That is not a 
radical statement. It does not say how that housing should be built.
  Mr. Chairman, there is something wrong in this country when we are 
building more jail units than we are building affordable housing units. 
There is something wrong when hundreds and hundreds of thousands of 
people are sleeping out in the streets. There is something wrong when 
millions of Americans are spending 50 or 60 or 70 percent of their 
limited incomes on housing and, therefore, not having enough money to 
provide food or clothing or educational opportunity for their children.

                              {time}  1815

  All that the Watt amendment says is, ``It is a goal of our Nation 
that all citizens have decent and affordable housing.''
  Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Lazio] to tell us not about demolition, not about how we should build 
housing, what is your objection to the sentence, ``It is a goal of our 
Nation that all citizens have decent and affordable housing''?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

[[Page H4599]]

  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman that 
we have in our statement of purpose almost the same language that says 
by using Federal resources to aid families and individuals seeking 
affordable homes that are safe, clean, and healthy. My objection is 
with what is stricken, which basically says that the Federal Government 
cannot through its direct action or involvement provide for the housing 
of every American citizen. We cannot. We need partnership. It is not 
what is inserted, it is stricken.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, will the gentleman 
accept the words that have been inserted?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Not if the point is that we are going to 
strike the lines that are stricken in the Watt amendment, 6, 7, 8, and 
9.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would simply conclude by stating that I 
think the Watt amendment is simple and straightforward. What it says is 
that in the United States of America, we should not have children 
sleeping out on the streets, we should not have people paying 50 or 60 
percent of their income for rent. I would strongly support the Watt 
amendment.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. There is a major inconsistency between my 
amendment and what is in the bill. I just want to make people aware of 
that. The bill says the Federal Government cannot through its action 
provide for the housing of every American citizen or even a majority of 
the citizens. All I am trying to do is put the goal back in the bill 
that we have had as national housing policy for 50 years.
  So it is that language that I want taken out of the bill. I put all 
of the rest of the language back in of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Lazio]. So if you want to agree to this, stand up and tell us, or stand 
up and tell the American people that you do not support that as a goal 
of the Federal housing policy of this country.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the subcommittee for 
his honesty in removing the goal of providing affordable and decent 
housing for Americans as the goal of our housing policy. It is an 
honest statement of what this bill would do.
  This bill guts that purpose, and it is commendably honest that the 
Republican sponsors of this bill state that they want to abandon that 
purpose, which we have had since 1937, for the last 60 years, as our 
goal. We have fallen short of that goal to a large extent because for 
the last 16 years or so, 20 in fact, we have been putting very little 
money into the construction of new public housing. We have built, as 
the gentleman from Vermont mentioned, more jail cells than public 
housing units in the last 15 years.
  So I support the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Watt] because I do not think we ought to be abandoning as a goal 
providing affordable and decent housing for Americans, though I do 
think it is honest, commendably honest, of the Republican leadership to 
state that that is what they are doing by removing that goal from the 
Housing Act, because that is what the provisions of the bill do.
  Let us look at the provisions of the bill for a moment. The gentleman 
from New York said, you have to get rid of the one-for-one rule which 
does not permit us to demolish eyesores and terrible housing. It would 
permit us to demolish that terrible housing if we were building 
replacement housing, if we were building housing for low income people.
  The fact is that under the Republican Presidents of 12 years, you 
keep talking about Democratic Congresses for 40 years, but do not 
forget about Republican Presidents for 24 of those 40 years, and 
Republican Senate for I forget how many of those 40 years. This House 
is not the House of Commons. We do not rule the country alone. Under 
the last 16 years of Republican Presidents, or 12 years, for the last 
20 years roughly, we have not been putting much money into the 
construction of low income housing. We should. Of course, if you look 
at our budget projections for the next seven years, we are not going 
to. But we should. We should return to our goal of providing decent 
housing.
  But this bill, again, is honest. It recognizes we are not going to do 
it. What does it do? It recognizes the fact we are going to cut, the 
appropriators are cutting the subsidies to public housing agencies. 
That is going to cause a big deficit in their budget. We will solve 
that problem. And what do we do? Abolish the Brooke amendment. Let us 
solve the deficits of the housing authorities budgets caused by great 
reductions in Federal aid by saying triple your rent.

  But wait a minute, these people who are earning less than 30 percent 
of median income cannot afford to pay that, cannot possibly afford to 
pay the rent increases that would be necessary to balance the housing 
authorities' budgets after we have cut the aid. That is okay. Remove 
the targeting requirements. Kick them out on the street and let them be 
homeless, and we will move in a higher group of people, low income, but 
higher income than before, that can pay the rents. It is a nice 
solution. It all melds together, cut the budgets, kick out the people, 
move in higher income people. Great idea if your only goal is saving 
some money. But if your goal is to provide safe, affordable, decent 
housing, it does not work. That is why it is commendably honest to 
eliminate that goal.
  Let me say one other thing. This bill is an insult. It contains a 
provision in the manager's amendment that insults hard working people, 
hard working people whose only deficiency, whose only character 
deficit, whose only crime, is that they are making the minimum wage or 
perhaps one and a half or two times the minimum wage. We are going to 
tell them they have to have a personal improvement plan? There is 
something wrong with them? We are going to judge, maybe the 
subcommittee is going to judge or the housing authority is going to 
judge their morals and character?
  Simply because they do not make enough money? Even though they may 
work one or two jobs? I will tell you how to have a personal 
improvement plan. Double the minimum wage. That will give you personal 
improvement for a lot of these people. It will improve their living 
conditions. It will solve the deficit problem to a large extent of our 
housing authorities. It will not insult working people by telling them 
there is something wrong with them because they do not make enough 
money and we have to tell them you have to have a personal improvement 
plan.
  So, again, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the gentleman 
from North Carolina.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Nadler was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, so again I rise in strong support of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] 
because it does not abandon the goal. It would stop the abandonment of 
the goal, at least as a statement of providing affordable housing for 
our people. But I commend the honesty of the Republican leadership in 
stating that that is no longer going to be our goal, because this bill 
certainly says it will not be.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I have tremendous professional respect and 
personal affection for the chairman of the subcommittee from the State 
of New York, but I think he is simply off base in not accepting and 
indeed embracing this amendment.
  It is a rather simple amendment. It does not prescribe a housing 
program, it just articulates what ought to be a personal goal of every 
American, it seems to me, and a national goal too, and that is that 
somehow we will attempt to provide shelter for the homeless in American 
society.
  The chairman of the subcommittee said he had no difficulty with that, 
it was simply what he wanted to point out we cannot do it for 
everybody. He

[[Page H4600]]

wanted to take a negative stance, if you will. I do not know if we 
should be quibbling about that.
  I would remind the gentleman that there are certain statements in the 
Bible, and the Bible says that we should feed the hungry. It does not 
say even though we cannot feed all the hungry we would like to. And the 
Bible tells us that we ought to clothe those who are without clothes, 
even though it does not say we cannot do it for all that we would like 
to. And it also tells us that we should be sheltering the homeless, and 
it does not say even though it is impossible to give shelter to every 
single homeless person. No. it is an articulation of goals, if you 
will. It establishes a vision.
  The amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] is one 
that should be accepted by acclamation.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to voice my strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by my colleague from North Carolina, and especially 
to rise in strong opposition to the remarks of the gentleman who 
preceded me in the well of this House, for not only has the gentleman 
chosen to misinterpret the intent of the new majority, I believe 
perhaps in his own words he has expressed, quite frankly, the 
alternative to what he purported in standing up in support of the 
amendment. Because he said, let every American find housing, not 
empower the government to decree to every American that it shall be the 
government that will provide that housing; that it shall be the 
government in a centralized authority that shall provide that housing.
  Indeed, my friends on the other side confuse compassion, for it is 
the opposition of compassion to try and claim that it is the sole 
domain of government or the basic purpose of government to control the 
masses, to decree where they live, and thereby somehow the government 
controls this.
  Even to the use of Holy Scriptures, I would remind those who check 
Holy Scriptures, nowhere in the verses cited is there any mention that 
it shall be the government which shall stand to take these actions, it 
shall be the government which will display its compassion through 
decreeing to citizens what type of structure they should live in, that 
it shall be the government that shall decree what is charity.
  Mr. Chairman, the true measure of compassion is people working with 
their heads and their hearts to provide not only for themselves, but 
for others. It is not the mission of government to take on more and 
more responsibility. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the government that my 
friends believe should be big enough to give all that they want will 
then be powerful enough to take away all that they have.
  So I stand here in the name of true compassion to say it is by 
empowerment, to say it is not the goal of government to house every 
American, but instead it is the goal of government to empower every 
individual to have the opportunity to live up to the potential each 
individual has. Yes, with a helping hand that is a safety net, but not 
with a program that decrees greater and greater and greater and greater 
dependency. There is nothing compassionate in that equation. It is only 
enslavement of the working class.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona performed us a service. We 
may be able to save time for the rest of the evening, because no cliche 
was left unuttered, and a lot of remarks people might have wanted to 
make, they will not have to make.

                              {time}  1830

  It was an interesting speech; not particularly relevant to the topic 
which, with the permission of the body, I will return to.
  Mr. Chairman, the question is, Should we accept the amendment of the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt]? Now, in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment, and I must say, I wonder who the staff members 
were that advised the gentleman from New York to fight this amendment 
rather than take it to committee. I would not put that person in for a 
bonus next year. But the question we have is: Do we retreat statutorily 
from even trying to provide housing?
  Mr. Chairman, I want to comment on the history offered by the 
gentleman from New York. I am sorry the gentleman is not here. I asked 
him to yield and he would not yield. The gentleman talked about all the 
terrible things that the Democrats did in housing. Well, what thing has 
he been complaining about the most? The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Lazio] has been denouncing the Brooke amendment as a job killer.
  Now, why does the gentleman so vigorously denounce a Republican who 
had the most distinguished record on housing of any Republican, and 
even any Member of this body? Why does the gentleman from New York 
continue denouncing Senator Brooke as a man who forced a job killing 
amendment? Because he said the Brooke amendment not only put a limit on 
what could be charged, but it put a floor on there and, therefore, it 
is a killer.
  But, Mr. Chairman, in Ed Brooke's amendment that language did not 
exist. Senator Brooke did not do that. Do my colleagues know who put 
the job killing part on the Brooke amendment? Ronald Reagan and 
everybody who voted for Gramm-Latta. The gentleman is denouncing the 
Democrats for the Reagan budget of 1981, which many of the Republicans 
here voted for. That is the job killer.
  Mr. Chairman, I cite that as an example of the lack of correspondence 
between the history, as narrated by the gentleman from New York, and 
reality. The gentleman simply is making it up. It is creative, it is 
interesting, but it is not congruent with the facts, which is, I think 
as clearly as one can say it under the rules of the House.
  Let us look at where we are on this. How do they defend the poor? By 
allowing the housing authorities to raise rents beyond any limit. I 
believe it is very creative. The Republicans, not all Republicans, not 
Senator Brooke and not many of my friends on the other side, but here 
is their problem: They want to build the B-2 bomber and they want to 
build star wars and a lot of other things, so they have to cut funds 
for housing.
  How Mr. Chairman, do we pretend that cutting the funds to maintain 
and operate public housing and provide security and combat drugs in the 
projects, how do we pretend that is in people's interest? Well, we say, 
``That rent cap is hurting you, so we are going to take the rent cap 
off because we do not want your rent to go up when you get a job.''
  We say we agree. We agree with Ed Brooke. We disagree with Ronald 
Reagan. We do not want there to be an automatic escalator. It is simply 
saying that there is a limit on the amount that a tenant can be 
charged, but there is no mandate that they a be charged that.
  Mr. Chairman, the problem is that that way the Republicans would not 
be able to cut housing and let the housing authorities increase the 
rents. Their rationale was ripped away from them, so they now come up 
with a new one.
  What is the new one? The new one is if tenants are making 30 percent 
of the median income or less, they will get the protection of the 30-
percent cap, but not if they are making more. Who, now, is giving the 
disincentive? They are.
  Under the Lazio plan, as opposed to our amendment, if tenants are 
making 30 percent or less, their rent is capped at 30 percent. But if 
they go to work, if they get off of welfare, the 30 percent level, and 
go to work, then there is no cap.
  How does the gentleman from New York defend that? If we set a 30-
percent cap, the housing authorities, because they need money, because 
the Republicans have cut it, will drive up to the top 30 percent. How 
does the gentleman prevent the housing authorities from going to 30 
percent on working people? By taking the cap off.
  So, miraculously the gentleman tells us if there is a 30-percent cap, 
the housing authorities will charge 30 percent, but if they can charge 
whatever they want, they will only charge 28 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, here is what the gentleman does to the elderly. Those 
Members who are nostalgic for debating the Notch Act, be very happy 
with this because he says to the elderly, if they are in elderly 
housing, their rent will be grandfathered. We will grandparent the 
grandparents at 30 percent.

[[Page H4601]]

But new elderly people who come in will be allowed to be charged 35 and 
40 and 45 percent. So within a few years, we will have a building of 
elderly people, some of whom will be paying 30 percent, some of whom 
will be paying 40 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, this is inequitable, socially destructive, and 
indicative of the poor policy choices of this legislation.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that, first of all, we should be ready to stay 
here tonight and to fight for housing for people in the United States 
of America.
  Millions of people depend on the outcome of this debate here tonight. 
I think it is unfortunate that we would want to change 50 years of 
housing policy and do it in 1 day, and to say we are all going to wrap 
this up here today.
  Mr. Chairman, I am happy to see Members on the Democratic side of the 
aisle beginning to fight with the Watt amendment, which I think is a 
cornerstone of what it is we are going to be debating here tonight and 
that is: What is the future? And the fact that my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle are even refusing to accept what seems to me to 
be very basically logical language, very fair language about attempting 
to reach as a goal that all Americans could have affordable housing, 
and then to turn that into an antigovernment rhetoric as though we are 
trying to impose Big Brother on somebody, which is totally not the 
case.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my Democratic colleagues and I 
suggest we continue to fight, we continue to struggle, because this is 
an important struggle that millions of Americans are going to depend 
upon.

  Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to read this. And of course, I was born in 
the United States of America and English is my first language. It is 
not my only language, thank God. But I read it and it says, ``It is the 
goal of our Nation.'' It does not say the goal of the Federal 
Government. It does not say the goal of the Government. ``The goal of 
our Nation that all citizens have decent and affordable housing.''
  Mr. Chairman, it says ``goal of our Nation.'' And how does it say, 
and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] put this splendidly, 
and then he says, ``Our Nation should promote the goal of providing 
decent, affordable housing for all citizens through the efforts and 
encouragement of the Federal, State, and local governments and,'' 
listen up, because sometimes people on that side of the aisle only hear 
what they want to hear. Read the whole thing. It says, ``and by 
promoting and protecting the independent and collective actions of 
private citizens.'' Not the Federal Government. Private citizens.
  It says it right here. Maybe that is why some people on that side of 
the aisle want English only because they cannot read it to begin with. 
``Collective actions of private citizens, organizations, and private 
sector to develop housing and strengthen their neighborhoods.'' That we 
should help, that we should be a conduit. That we should be 
facilitators of that goal. That is what is says here.
  That is what it says here. So, I do not understand the rhetoric that 
denounces this side of the aisle, and specifically the gentleman from 
North Carolina, for wanting to impose the big hand of the Federal 
Government, because that is just not what it says.
  Now, maybe there is another English language that I have not been 
accustomed to or acknowledged, but I think this is what this says.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say, look, to say to us that we are going 
to give public housing authorities across this Nation hundreds of 
millions, billions of dollars less and say we care about those people, 
I think is a little disingenuous. Then, to come back and say, where our 
side is saying 30 percent should be the cap.
  Mr. Chairman, if I went to a bank, because I know that side wants us 
to run everything like the private sector, and if I went to a bank 
today, that bank would say to me, ``Mr. Gutierrez, you cannot get a 
loan for your home that exceeds 28 percent of your income.'' That is 
banking standards across this country. But this Congress of the United 
States is going to say we can charge more than 30 percent of that 
person's salary for housing. I think let us follow the private sector.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. I yield to the gentleman from Delaware.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, let me just try to bring this down to the 
level of what we are dealing with in this amendment, because I think 
the language has been overlooked here, which I think is fair language.
  I am a great believer in the need for public housing and that is what 
we are doing, but it states, and what is being stricken here, ``The 
Federal Government cannot through its direct action or involvement 
provide for the housing of every American citizen.'' I think this is a 
given. ``Or even a majority of its citizens.'' ``But the responsibility 
of the government to promote and protect the independent and collective 
actions of private citizens to develop housing and strengthen their own 
neighborhoods.''
  I do not have a problem with that language, not as a Republican or 
Democrat, but just as one reading it. It is preamble language in this 
bill. It is fair language. I am not sure what we are arguing about.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Gutierrez was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I think the point is we should be 
working this out. We should be sitting down with the gentleman so that 
we can reach a consensus here that there is a role, there is a 
responsibility for all of us.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot cut earned income tax credit; we cannot say 
we are not going to give a raise on the minimum wage; we cannot say we 
are going to cut school lunches; we cannot say we are going to do less 
and less and less and you are going to do more with less. Let us come 
together. It should be a goal of this country, a place that we seek to 
reach that everybody can live in a decent and affordable home.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, a number of the members of the committee 
have spoken here, and I certainly respect their expertise in the matter 
as I respect the gentleman who is sponsoring and handling this bill, 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio].
  My perspective is broader than that. It is the experience that I have 
had in my district and in talking to people around the country who are 
trying to rebuild distressed urban neighborhoods. My experience is one 
that I think is shared by most of the Members of this body. It simply 
does not reflect well on HUD.
  Mr. Chairman, let me tell a couple of anecdotes that show that. I was 
on a talk show about a year and a half ago with the man who used to be 
the mayor of the city of St. Louis. He is a member of the Democratic 
Party. I said, ``If you were the czar of public housing in this 
country,'' and he had a lot of experience with it, ``what would you do 
to provide good public housing for poor people?'' Mr. Chairman, he 
said, ``I can tell you what I would begin by doing. I would begin by 
abolishing the Department of Housing and Urban Development,'' and then 
he went on to explain why HUD was blocking the efforts of local 
officials and private people to provide decent housing for people.
  Mr. Chairman, I visited the Columbia Heights neighborhood here in the 
District of Columbia and looked at what those neighborhood associations 
are doing to get good people into decent housing. I asked them, ``What 
is your big problem with housing?'' They said, ``It is HUD. HUD owns 
about 40 properties in our neighborhood, but will not do anything with 
them. Will not give them to me. I cannot rehab them. They are run 
down.''
  HUD has a lot of people locked in a public housing project using dumb 
rules and it is a source of difficulty and we cannot get control and 
cannot do anything about it. I can go on and on. I think everybody in 
this body could.
  It seems that there is a whole lot of people in this country, and 
this is encouraging, a group like Embers Beneath the Ashes of Urban 
America,

[[Page H4602]]

that are rebuilding their neighborhoods, and they keep telling us that 
HUD is a problem. We keep saying that it is HUD and we cannot do 
anything about that.
  This bill is an attempt to do something about it. What do we need to 
do? We need to return local control back to the people in these 
neighborhoods. We need to say: We trust you. You can run some housing 
projects on your own without detailed supervision.
  We need flexibility in Section 8 housing. We need to promote work 
instead of punishing it. We need to provide for home ownership where we 
can. That seems to me what is in the preamble here. I do not know that 
there is a lot of difference. It just seems to me that what we have in 
the bill with regard to the preamble makes clear that we recognize that 
the Federal Government is not directly responsible for performing all 
of those things.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to go on further and say, as it does say, 
the Federal Government has a responsibility to help and will help, but 
what we have been doing the last couple of decades is not helping, but 
blocking the people who really can make a difference. That is what my 
concern is.
  We are fighting over language here. I hope that we can get behind 
this bill, that we can move forward, and that what we are not seeing 
here is some rear guard action on behalf of the status quo and that we 
are going to take this bill up line by line, section by section, and we 
end up with nothing except HUD oppressing these neighborhoods as they 
have been doing year after year after year.
  There are so many people who see these problems back home and want to 
know why we do not do something and then they see us up here and 
nothing ever happens. I hope that is not the result tonight.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I just want to associate 
myself with the remarks the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent] made 
about his analysis of the problem. Most of us who serve on the 
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity recognize that there 
have been many problems with HUD and that there have been, in fact, 
some terribly run housing projects, some even worse run housing 
authorities.
  There are changes that are contained within this legislation that are 
bipartisan in nature. The statements that suggest that we have got to 
get rid of any problems that hold back people from going to work, that 
we in fact ought to allow greater local control over housing 
authorities, that we ought to provide tenant management programs and 
all kinds of innovative and creative ways of getting local control is 
in fact important.

                              {time}  1845

  I can say to the gentleman that I agree with him. I do not understand 
why a couple of Republicans are digging in their heels about setting a 
goal on trying to provide housing for the American people. What is the 
problem? I cannot believe we are having this debate. Why do not we just 
accept the language?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Bereuter was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield again to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Talent].
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my friend, the last gentleman 
who spoke from Massachusetts, that I would hope that that is not the 
case as well. When I have seen a number of times, I hope that is not 
the case here, is Members who indicate that they are for change in 
these areas but keep picking and picking and picking at proposals so 
that at the end of the day nothing gets done. So they try and have it 
both ways; say, yes, we are for it, but at the end of the day nothing 
is being done. I hope that is not happening here.
  Mr. Chairman, if there truly is not much difference between the two, 
what is in the bill and the gentleman's amendment, I do not know why we 
have to have the amendment, why it was offered and why we are fighting 
over there for so long.
  I would say to the gentleman I hope something gets done tonight. I 
hope this does not become a referendum over something that does not 
matter and instead is a referendum over what does matter for the people 
of this country, which is whether we are going to rein in HUD or not. 
That is the way that I see this bill.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat perplexed at the length of this debate 
tonight. I will try not to extend it too much further. I have to admit 
that I looked at the language of this amendment and I do not know what 
is objectionable. I do not see what the problem is.
  The first sentence says it is a goal of our Nation that all citizens 
have decent and affordable housing. What is the objectionable part? Are 
we opposed to all citizens having decent and affordable housing? Are we 
opposed to citizens having affordable housing? Are we opposed to 
citizens having decent housing? I do not see what the problem is. I do 
not see why this is an objectionable amendment.
  It goes on then to say that our Nation should promote the goal of 
providing decent and affordable housing for all citizens through the 
efforts and encouragement of Federal, State and local governments and 
by promoting and protecting the independent and collective actions of 
private citizens, organizations and the private sector to develop 
housing and strengthen their neighborhoods. This piece of legislation, 
this amendment, if handed to most Members in this body and asked them 
who drafted it, they would say the realtors drafted it. This looks like 
a statement from the realtors. The realtors believe in affordable 
housing. The realtors believe in decent housing. But the problem is it 
has been offered by the gentleman from North Carolina. That seems to be 
the problem.
  Mr. Chairman, the language in the bill itself says that the Federal 
Government cannot or should not get involved through direct or indirect 
action but should do so only when there is serious need that private 
citizens or groups cannot or are not addressing the problem 
responsibly. Does that mean that the majority is against the deduction 
for home ownership? The Federal Government is getting involved in 
housing? The Federal Government is doing the terrible thing that most 
people say over there, the Federal Government is actually encouraging 
home ownership in this country by allowing American citizens to deduct 
their home mortgages.
  I do not think that is such a bad thing. I think 99 percent of the 
people in this country think that home ownership should be encouraged. 
I fail to see why there is this line being drawn over this amendment. 
Take a look at the amendment. Read the amendment. It is a good 
amendment. It is a common sense amendment.
  I dare say it is an American amendment. It is apple pie. Let us just 
take the amendment and go on.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I have been listening to this debate, and I have had a chance to read 
this bill and to read the amendment. I want to congratulate our 
chairman. I have been listening to the debate here and had a chance to 
take a look at this bill. I want to congratulate the chairman because I 
think he is the first real leader to bring meaningful change to this 
issue that we have had and we have been. I have been in this Congress 
for 18 years, and this is the first time I can honestly say that we 
have got a housing bill that has some fundamental changes. So I 
congratulate the chairman for that.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] is for change. I see the 
opponents of this bill come in with their amendment as fighting for the 
status quo. This is an honest bill. What this bill says is that the 
Federal Government cannot, through its direct action or involvement, 
provide for the housing for every American citizen. It is the first 
time I have read an honest bill dealing with this subject in a long, 
long time.
  Mr. Chairman, we had one of the previous speakers, my good friend 
from

[[Page H4603]]

Washington, get up and say the realtors could have drafted this 
amendment from the gentleman from North Carolina. Members can see that 
that is the point. We are not interested in special interests coming in 
here drafting our legislation; are we?
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] did not have special 
interests drafting this legislation. It was done for the American 
people. Now we have got people coming in here debating the issue saying 
we want the realtors to draft the amendments. I do not want realtors 
drafting amendments. I love realtors. They are great people. They are 
hard working people. But I do not want them writing the legislation. I 
want us here in this Congress writing the legislation.
  This is a great bill. I congratulate the chairman for his hard work 
and the members of the committee. I even congratulated the chairman, I 
mean the gentleman from North Carolina, for his hard work. But his 
amendment does not belong on this bill. This is not special interest 
legislation. We have had too much of that. That is why the people in 
the last election voted for change because they were voting for this 
kind of legislation, not for special interest legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, for 40 years we have had the special interests come in 
here and write the legislation. The American people said we do not want 
any more of that. We want Members of the Congress to draft the 
legislation. That is precisely what this bill is before us. It is 
legislation that is drafted by Members of Congress and not by the 
special interests.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I think that my colleague from Wisconsin 
mischaracterized the statement of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Barrett] that Mr. Barrett is suggesting that this amendment or this 
language, which reiterates the 1937 and 1949 housing goal, could have 
been drafted by groups from the private sector, could have been drafted 
by others.
  It should be noncontroversial, I think, was his point, not that it 
was drafted. Frankly, I do not know who drafted the 1937 or 1049. All I 
know is that it serves this Nation well to have that and hold that up 
as a goal. That we do not accomplish it is very disappointing.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding to me.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, one of the great concerns I have is, as I 
listen to this debate, is that we seem to forget that there have been 
points in American history when we have found the need to be involved 
in whatever area we found there to be a problem that in some way made 
it impossible for us to have the best possible demonstration of what 
democracy is all about.
  One of those was when our soldiers returned from war and we decided 
that we needed to provide housing. Therefore, we developed the VA 
program, subsequently the FHA programs and other programs that opened 
up opportunities for people to be able to move into home ownership. It 
was felt that the Government had a role in trying to assure that every 
person who was an American, every person who saluted this flag, who 
understood its Constitution and understood the responsibility as a 
citizen of this Nation could expect that there would be some benefits 
which would derive to them.
  It seems to me now we move away from the responsibility of making 
sure that every American understands that they have a place, every 
American understands that this country is concerned about them. 
Particularly those Americans who go to work every day would like to be 
able to become a homeowner and find it difficult to do so.
  I think many of us function under the notion, which I consider a bit 
naive, that somehow the private sector or some others will take care of 
the responsibility for assuring that every citizen has an opportunity 
to become a homeowner. I hate to tell you but that is just not a fact. 
There is enough data to support the notion that in this country there 
are reasons that are not given but in fact it is impossible for every 
American citizen to dare to even believe that they can own a home.
  I support this amendment because I think it makes sense. It makes 
sense for a strong Nation with bountiful resources, with the capability 
to respond to almost any predicament that it finds necessary, to do so 
in the midst of a homeless crisis, in the midst of a situation where 
persons work every day and still are not able to save enough money to 
be able to buy a house, to at least believe that it has a 
responsibility to let somebody know that we as a government, we as a 
Nation believe that we want you to participate. We want you to share in 
the American dream. We want you to become a homeowner. We will do 
everything possible to make it real for you.
  I am a provider. I know what it means not only to talk about it, the 
rhetoric of building communities and building homes. I do it. I know 
what it means when a person has an opportunity to be able to move into 
their own home. They not only begin to do what is necessary to pay the 
mortgage. They do whatever is necessary to fix that home up. They work 
two jobs, if necessary. They do whatever they can to provide for the 
needs of their family while at the same time providing the best housing 
opportunity.
  I think that when we move away from that responsibility, we are 
saying to a certain segment of Americans, you do not count; you are 
really not important. We do not see it as our role to try to assure 
that you have an opportunity to participate in the American dream.
  One speaker before me said, and it is indeed correct, those persons 
who can afford home ownership in America find that the Government in 
fact does in many ways pay for them to be home owners. It gives tax 
credits for their mortgage. It gives tax credits for other taxes that 
they pay to the county and State. And then we come to this place and 
say, no, we do not have a responsibility or an obligation.
  I would challenge my colleagues. I would hope we can move out of 
partisanship to deal with this particular issue because I think it 
supersedes that. I think all of you, Democrat and Republican, black and 
white, female and male, must understand our obligations to one another 
as citizens. And when we do that, I think we can come to good 
legislation.
  We stand up and we proudly sing, America, America, God shed his grace 
on thee, and crown thy good, and crown thy good with brotherhood from 
sea to shining sea. In between the seas there are a lot of people who 
are suffering. There are a lot of people who are crying. There are a 
lot of people who have desires. There are a lot of people who have 
unmet needs, and we do not meet those needs by virtue to moving away 
from our responsibility as a people to other people, sharing in a kind 
of brotherhood that lets us understand that even the poorest of us, the 
poorest among us have a right to be able to believe that in this 
society, in this Nation, they will be able to be provided with shelter.
  I would hope my colleagues would bury the hatchet of separation and 
move together. Let us take the Watt amendment. Let us agree to it and 
let us more forward.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Bereuter, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Flake was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might be able to engage in 
a colloquy with the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  I know you are the maker of the amendment. I am just becoming 
familiar with the amendment and what it attempts to do. My problem, 
speaking only for myself, is not what you are suggesting and adding in 
the way of national goals. I think they are entirely appropriate. There 
is a long history for it.
  The problem I have and I suspect that most Members have is what you 
are deleting. Some Members on this side of the aisle, including myself, 
feel very strongly that the language which says ``the Federal 
Government cannot, through direct action or involvement, provide for 
the housing of every American citizen or even a majority'' is an

[[Page H4604]]

important change. But there is absolutely nothing that is contestable, 
in my judgment, with what you are suggesting in the way of the goal of 
our Nation that all citizens have decent, affordable housing. Our 
Nation should promote the goal of providing decent, affordable housing 
and so on and so forth, through State, local, Federal action and 
private action which you describe in several ways.
  Is it not possible for us to reach an agreement on this subject or do 
we have an impossible difference of opinion here so that you simply do 
not strike line 20 on page 5 through line 2 on page 6, but you add back 
or you add language which we have accepted in this country for a long 
period of time. Does the gentleman find that as a possible amendment?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would think that there is 
not a dime's worth of difference between where I think we are and where 
I hope the gentleman is. If it would facilitate reaching some kind of 
agreement about this issue, I would be happy, if we could get unanimous 
consent to withdraw the amendment and reoffer it. But I do not want to 
lose my place.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield. 
I would ask the gentleman a question then. I would make a unanimous 
consent request at this point, and we will see if the gentleman finds 
it acceptable.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that the section in the 
gentleman's amendment, the amendment offered by Mr. Watt, where he 
strikes line 20 and all that follows through page 6, on line 2, and 
insert the following new paragraph:
  The striking portion be deleted from the gentleman's amendment and 
that the appropriate re-numbering follow so that, in fact, we are 
adding all of the gentleman's new language to the existing language on 
page 5 and 6.
  I would make that unanimous-consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Nebraska?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to 
object, I am wondering if the gentleman might allow the debate to 
continue while we actually look at the impact of that, and it might 
have some possibilities if we could just allow whoever else wants to 
speak on this to speak, and in the meantime we will continue to work on 
it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Nebraska withdraw the 
unanimous-consent request?
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the unanimous-consent request 
until we have time to deliberate on it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone seek recognition on the amendment?
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Members, I am pleased that I happen to come to the floor at a time 
where there appears that we can have some agreement about how we can 
get language back into this legislation that will place us squarely on 
the frontlines in ensuring that this Nation places priorities where 
they should be.
  As a matter of fact, I am very pleased that the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] has offered to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Watt] an opportunity to put this language back in that 
will ensure that this is a goal that we have in this country, that we 
have a goal of trying to make sure that there is safe and decent 
housing for all Americans.
  This does not mean, however, that we have to pay for housing for 
everybody. This does not mean that we have to appropriate money in 
order to build housing. This simply means that we think it is good, it 
is right, and it is meaningful to have decent housing for everybody, 
and I think it would be a wonderful thing for the Congress of the 
United States, the House of Representatives this evening, to say to 
America we believe that everybody should have what we have.
  Mr. Chairman, everybody in this Congress goes home at night to a 
wonderful place to sleep. As a matter of fact, most people in this 
Congress have two or three places to sleep. We have a place here in 
Washington, we have a place in our district. Some of the more fortunate 
have summer homes. Some have two or three homes. And I am sure that we 
would not want to send the message that while we enjoy the comforts of 
two and three and four homes, that somehow we cannot go on record as 
saying we think every American deserves a decent, safe, and secure 
place to live.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
to strike the requisite number of words to enter into a colloquy with 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio].
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I was wondering if the chairman of the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services would be willing to endorse 
the process of having the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] and 
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] get together to try to 
work out some mutually acceptable language.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman was asking 
whether I would support a unanimous-consent request for the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] to withdraw his motion without prejudice 
with the ability to come back and re-offer his amendment after 
reflection and negotiation on this particular item, I would have no 
objection to that.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. And, Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if 
the gentleman could maybe give some encouragement. I would give a great 
deal of encouragement to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] 
to try to work the thing out. I was wondering if we might expect the 
same from the gentleman with respect to the gentleman from Nebraska 
[Mr. Bereuter].
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. If the gentleman would continue to yield, Mr. 
Chairman, we have been debating this for over an hour now. The 
important aspect of this for me is to insure that the language which 
speaks to what I believe is the Federal role in terms of it being a 
partner is preserved to the extent that there is additional material 
that is inserted that is consistent, I believe is consistent, 
basically, with what the other elements of our purpose is. I think that 
it would be a rational thing to believe that we can agree on and that 
we be able to resolve this issue.
  I am supportive of the process.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I think that was a yes, 
and I am going to take it as one.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am moved by the 
gentlewoman's statement, and I appreciate the fact that she has come to 
the floor as I have listened to the debate as well with a very 
prominent housing authority facility in my district, Allan Parkway 
Village, that has languished for so many years because there may not 
have been the kind of spirit where the community would come together 
and say, yes, we need decent, affordable housing, so we do not have 
this acrimony; we want to work on affordable housing.
  I want to raise with the gentlewoman, since she comes from California 
and I am from Texas, taking this language out would suggest to me if we 
want to just take it to the absurd, that if we had a disaster, and we 
asked FEMA to come in, that maybe in fact FEMA should not go in to 
recreate affordable housing or housing for people whose housing was 
destroyed because, we take this language and we say we want no 
involvement of sorts of the Federal Government.
  That seems to be not what this Congress wants to say, and certainly 
if those who have decent housing destroyed by a natural disaster can 
then have new housing built, why not poor

[[Page H4605]]

people, and have the Federal Government's involvement to do the right 
thing, which is to create an opportunity for affordable housing?
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman makes a good point 
that we certainly could have situations, as we know, in this United 
States where people lose their homes because there are acts of nature, 
and we certainly do not want to send the message that we do not somehow 
want to assume some responsibility in insuring that there is 
replacement housing.
  But beyond that, my colleagues in this House, even with the goals 
that we have articulated in the preamble to housing legislation in the 
past, we still have millions of people who are without decent, safe 
housing in America. We need that goal throughout, not simply the inner 
cities of America. I am not talking about St. Louis and Philadelphia, 
and I am not simply talking about Harlem or other cities that people 
would immediately want to think about. I am talking about rural America 
also, where people are living in shacks, where people still do not have 
running water in America. I am talking about down in the delta in 
Mississippi, where we have people not only without running water, but 
people who have rags stuffed in the openings in the side of their homes 
and coverings put on roofs of plastic and other materials in order to 
keep the rain out.
  So I am sure that those who thought about taking out this goal, this 
wonderful goal that speaks to family values, this goal that talks about 
insuring that children have a safe and decent place to live. I am sure 
they did not know what they were saying.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, let me pick up on a point. We are not only 
talking about housing which is slum housing.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Waters] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Sanders, and by unanimous consent, Ms. Waters was 
allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, we are not only talking about inadequate 
housing without running water, with holes in the roof. We are talking 
about housing that is not affordable. Millions and millions of 
Americans today are paying 50, 60, 70 percent of their limited income 
for housing, and they have very little else to live with. And that is 
why the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 
Watt's amendment, is important, and that is why it should be passed.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say I think the 
language of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] conforms with 
the bill.
  I am one of the few Democrats who actually supported the bill when it 
was sent from the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and I do 
not see any problem with including this language, and I think it is 
true that this language not only meets the history of our Nation's 
commitment to housing, but it also meets the policy that I have not 
seen the other side of the aisle talk about doing away with.
  When we look at what we do directly, indirectly, and what we do in 
encouraging housing in this country, if we look at things like the VA 
Guarantee Program, the FHA program, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the 
government-sponsored entities, the Federal Home Loan Bank System, to 
create a secondary market to increase the availability and 
affordability of home mortgages, things like FmHA to assist in creating 
affordable housing in the Farmers' Home Loan Program for the rural 
communities, the mortgage interest deduction, which I think 80 million 
American families benefit from, the low-income tax credit to spur 
multifamily and single-family development for low-income housing, the 
redevelopment tax credit for historical housing, things such as the 
mortgage revenue bonds, multifamily bonds to provide a tax subsidy for 
both single-family and multifamily housing for middle-income families, 
and the mortgage credit certificate program.
  So, clearly, it has been historically the goal of this Nation to 
provide assistance in housing, and the fact of the matter is over the 
time that we have done that we have seen home ownership, which I think 
both sides of the aisle seek to attain, we have seen home ownership 
rise dramatically since the Great Depression.
  So this fits within the goal of the United States, and I think the 
gentleman from North Carolina's language is commensurate with what the 
goals of the bill are.
  As I said, I support the legislation. I think it makes sense. I think 
there are some things that we are going to have to do to make it 
better. One would be the Frank-Gutierrez amendment because I think we 
want to be careful that the bill does not turn local housing agencies, 
public housing agencies and local housing management agencies, into 
profit centers where they seek to raise the most revenue in a time of 
declining Federal revenues at the expense of low-income people who need 
housing assistance the most.
  So I intend to support that amendment, and I would encourage my 
colleagues to do so, but I think that it is a mistake for us to argue 
or have some ideological argument to think that somehow we cannot have 
any involvement in housing, because if we look at the tax code, if we 
look at other sections of the code with our government-sponsored 
entities, we will see that we have long, in a bipartisan fashion, done 
everything we could to promote housing, home ownership, and I think 
that is the goal that we should continue.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the United States Housing Act. As 
a member of the House Banking Committee, I am pleased that we are 
considering critical public housing legislation today in the House of 
Representatives.
  This legislation would fundamentally reform the public housing and 
section 8 rental assistance programs. This legislation would deregulate 
the Public Housing Authorities and promote more local control over 
public housing programs. In addition, it would consolidate section 8 
certificate and voucher programs to promote efficiency and encourage 
more public housing residents to move into neighborhoods, rather than 
project-based residences. This emphasis on vouchers will ensure that 
public housing recipients can either rent or buy homes throughout our 
communities.
  I am particularly pleased that this legislation will encourage home 
ownership and flexible vouchers for rental assistance. Home ownership 
has been shown to increase the financial status of purchasers and 
improve the quality of life for all Americans. We provide many 
incentives for people to buy their own home and this bill would 
increase these opportunities for qualified recipients. Flexible 
vouchers allow tenants to move into their communities, away from 
project-based assistance. Vouchers offer real choice for tenants and 
would encourage competition among developers to provide quality housing 
at a reasonable price.
  Existing public housing programs would be consolidated and 
transferred to Local Housing Management Agencies [LHMA's] that would 
administer federally-assisted housing programs and manage these 
properties. These LHMA's would be accredited by the Housing Foundation 
and Accreditation Board to ensure that local programs are well-run and 
fulfilling their mission. These locally-oriented LHMA's would make 
decisions about what kind of housing they would offer, including 
project-based assistance or voucher-based assistance. As part of this 
process, the LHMA's would develop a local housing management plan where 
local residents and communities leaders would work together to 
accomplish this goal.
  There is a real need to reform public housing programs to better meet 
the needs of American families. The 1.4 million existing public housing 
units simply are not meeting the need and are often beyond repair. Of 
the 13 million families who qualify for public housing, only 4.3 
million families actually live in public housing. Clearly, we must do 
more to meet housing needs.
  This legislation would provide greater flexibility to meet housing 
needs. Decisions about admissions and tenants would be changed so that 
public housing programs could include a broader mix of residents. As 
Federal assistance to housing declines, there is a real need to find 
new sources of revenue for public housing authorities. Allowing higher 
income families to move into Federal assisted housing dwellings will 
help to replace Federal subsidies.

[[Page H4606]]

  This bill is also carefully written to ensure that those most in need 
will continue to receive public housing. For instance, under the 
manager's amendment, at least 50 percent of the tenant-based assistance 
will be reserved for families making 60 percent or less of the area 
median income.
  H.R. 2406 also would reform the rents charged for public housing 
units. Under the manager's amendment, the maximum rents charged for 
current residents earning less than 30 percent of the median income 
would be capped at 30 percent of their incomes. In addition, current 
disabled and senior citizens would also be charged capped rents of 30 
percent of their incomes. Representatives Frank, Gutierrez, and Hinchey 
will offer an amendment that would further protect low-income families. 
The Frank/Gutierrez amendment would cap rents at 30 percent of a family 
income. I support this effort because I believe we should ensure that 
low-income families are not required to contribute an unreasonable and 
unsustainable portion of their income to housing. However, the Frank/
Gutierrez amendment ensures that LHMA's will receive more income from 
tenants without charging excessive rents for public housing residents.
  During consideration of H.R. 2406 in the House Banking Committee, I 
successfully offered three amendments to encourage home ownership for 
low-income families. To really help low-income families we should do 
everything possible to promote home ownership. Studies have shown that 
the largest obstacle to home ownership is the downpayment and closing 
costs. My amendment would permit resident to put together their 
downpayment from gifts, grants, or loans in addition to their own 
funds. This has been utilized at the State and local level 
successfully. A second amendment I offered would reduce the opportunity 
for abusive sales practices by requiring the recapture of the Federal 
subsidy for the first 5 years of homeownership. We should encourage 
homeownership for the long term, not short term flipping. The third 
amendment would ensure that Federal housing programs vouchers could no 
be used to violate local housing deed restrictions except where these 
violate the Fair Housing Act. In Houston where there is no zoning, this 
protection would ensure that single-family neighborhoods are protected 
from multi-family developments, while still allowing the use of 
vouchers. I am pleased these improvements were made to the bill.
  H.R. 2406 will streamline Federal housing programs and result in 
better housing opportunities for all Americans. In order to reform our 
housing programs, we must promote innovation and provide more local 
control over public housing. The U.S. Housing Act does that and I urge 
my colleagues' support.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] be allowed to address 
the House for 2 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I am hoping that the chairman returns 
soon because I think we are close to an agreement here.
  Just to reiterate what we are attempting to do: We are attempting to 
keep the language, page 5, line 20, through line 2, page 6, to make it 
clear that, ``the Federal Government cannot through its direct action 
or involvement provide for the housing of every American citizen,'' and 
the gentleman is offering a few changes there so we will delete the 
words ``or involvement'' and instead it would read, ``the Federal 
Government cannot through its direct action only provide for the 
housing for every American or even a majority of its citizens, but it 
is the responsibility of the government to promote and protect the 
independent and collective actions of private citizens to develop 
housing and strengthen their own neighborhoods;''. That would stay as 
opposed to being deleted by the gentleman from North Carolina.
  But in addition, the gentleman would add the following language which 
we do not contest, it appears, on this side, and I do not think we 
should, which indicates the following subparagraph, subparagraph (2):

       It is a goal of our Nation that all citizens have decent 
     and affordable housing; No. 3, our Nation should promote the 
     goal of providing decent and affordable housing for all 
     citizens through the efforts and encouragement of Federal, 
     State and local governments and by promoting and protecting 
     the independent and collective action of private citizens, 
     organizations and the private sector to develop housing and 
     strengthen their own neighborhood.

  We have reached that point of agreement, I believe now, between the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] and Members on this side of 
the aisle, and I believe that we have a unanimous-consent request to 
proceed.
  There is one remaining item that the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Watt] has brought up which may yet be controversial, and so I 
would ask the gentleman from North Carolina if he wishes to proceed, 
and we would have a replacement which does accomplish what we have 
already attempted to do, or should we pass over this for the moment 
until they can resolve the final point?

                              {time}  1915

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would hope that any modification will be 
submitted in writing so we can assure the accuracy of the Record.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have sat, incredulous, that this debate has been 
ongoing. Of course, I am very supportive of the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] and appreciative of the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] and those who are concerned 
enough to be about the business of trying to reconcile what remaining 
differences exist with reference to some rather innocuous language.
  Mr. Chairman, this Nation built a monument to middle-class housing 
under the aegis of the Federal Housing Administration and the Veterans' 
Administration, and rightly so. We seem to forget exactly what the 
United States of America does for any number of entities who are 
involved in institutional development.
  When a major institution in this country builds a new building and 
leases it for 99 years, it does not mean that the Federal Government is 
not involved in insuring the loan that constructed those magnificent 
high-rises in many of our communities that have absolutely nothing to 
do with the housing of poor individuals.
  How dare we come in here and say, as policymakers of this Nation, 
that we do not favor a goal of ensuring that every citizen in this 
country has safe and inhabitable housing? I find it almost unbelievable 
that in the preamble to this bill that is going to change housing 
policy that has been in existence for as much as 50 years, we find 
ourselves debating something as simple as whether or not it ought to be 
the goal of the U.S. Congress and its Members to state that we favor 
every citizen in this country having safe and inhabitable housing.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue pretty much in the vein that 
the gentleman started, that talked about some of the things that we 
have done to carry out that kind of policy. As a matter of fact, Mr. 
Chairman, the GSE's come to mind, the government service enterprises, 
where we have FNMA and Freddie Mac. That is not about anything more 
than ensuring that we have the vehicles by which we can get those 
mortgages on the secondary market to ensure that people can own homes.
  If we do not support the preamble and the goals of that preamble, are 
we then saying we want to remove our support from these GSE's and all 
of these instruments that we have developed to support ownership and 
means by which people can get into safe and decent housing? Would the 
gentleman not say that we have in place not only the GSE's, but 
veterans policy and other things to carry out the goals that we 
articulated in that preamble? Is that what the gentleman is referring 
to?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, there is no question but what 
that is true, if we were to add to that the mortgage deduction that I 
benefit from in developing my interests in a home, or any number of 
aspects of the government's involvement in allowing for the 
development.
  But what I was trying to get across is it is not only homes. We 
insure the homes of millionaires with their mortgages. There is nothing 
wrong with that. Why, then, should there not be a goal that we want to 
make sure that every American understands that we as

[[Page H4607]]

policymakers favor their right to have a safe and inhabitable house, 
and that the public and the private sector, local and Federal and 
State, ought to participate as a goal to ensure that? I thought that is 
what I was here about.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The 
gentleman has rightly pointed out the tremendous home ownership 
opportunities that have been developed in these last 50 years. To date, 
65 percent of American families own their own homes.
  Tonight, of course, what we are talking about is those groups that 
are in most desperate need, those that are receiving public housing. 
That is what this particular bill is about. That is why I think it is 
so important that we recognize this as a goal among the neediest, and I 
think as a Nation we have done very well.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment currently under debate be withdrawn, and that an 
amendment which I have at the desk be substituted instead.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
North Carolina?
  Mr. BEREUTER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I will not 
object. I want to thank the gentleman for his work on it, and the 
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], 
on following through on a suggestion we made in a colloquy here. I urge 
my colleagues to support the unanimous consent request and the 
amendment that the gentleman from North Carolina will subsequently 
offer.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.


            amendment offered by mr. watt of north carolina

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina: page 5, 
     line 22, insert ``alone'' after ``involvement'' and strike 
     ``or involvement''; page 6, line 3 strike ``only''; page 6, 
     after line 10 add the following: and renumber accordingly.
       (5) it is a goal of our Nation that all citizens have 
     decent and affordable housing;
       (6) our Nation should promote the goal of providing decent 
     and affordable housing for all citizens through the efforts 
     and encouragement of Federal, State, and local governments 
     and by promoting and protecting the independent and 
     collective actions of private citizens, organizations, and 
     the private sector to develop housing and strengthen their 
     own neighborhoods.

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina (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 
North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, basically what we have done 
in the bill is to acknowledge, as the original bill does, that the 
Federal Government cannot alone accomplish all of the housing 
objectives that we all have as a Nation.
  We have added to that the goal, the specific language that is in the 
original Watt amendment, which says that our Nation should promote the 
goal of providing decent and affordable housing, and the rest of the 
language that was in the original amendment, and we have acknowledged 
that the Federal Government can pursue this policy. So I think all our 
hearts and minds are at peace on this.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlemen yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the gentleman that I 
am so appreciative that he took the leadership to ensure that we did 
not somehow kill a philosophy that has held us in good stead as it 
relates to housing. I thank the gentleman.
  I would like to take this time to thank the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Lazio] and the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] for bending 
and for accepting that it is important to have this as part of our 
philosophy. I think that if we continue to work in this vein, we can 
straighten this bill out. We have a couple more amendments to go that I 
think are very important, but for the time being, I think it is worth 
it to note that an important step has been taken here in moving in the 
right direction. I thank the gentleman so much.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman as 
well for working with us to resolve this issue. I emphasize again that 
the point we are trying to make and which we continue to make and which 
the gentleman has agreed to graciously in terms of this language is to 
ensure that the Federal Government cannot go it alone. Those days are 
basically over. We need to develop good community partnerships, the 
Federal Government being a vibrant and vital partner in developing a 
housing strategy, together with States, together with communities, 
locally based solutions, for-profits, not-for-profits, institutions, 
all working together collaboratively.
  I want to stress my support for the modification to the amendment 
that the gentleman has offered.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want 
to express my special thanks to my friend, and in the heat of debate 
sometimes people get the impression that we are not friends. The 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] is my friend, but this is important 
public policy and an important goal that the Nation should have for 
affordable and decent housing for all Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to express a particular thanks to the gentleman 
from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], who played the role of peacemaker and 
reminded us of what we are here about this evening.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to section 2?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title I.
  The text of title I is as follows:
                      TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 101. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to promote safe, clean, and 
     healthy housing that is affordable to low-income families, 
     and thereby contribute to the supply of affordable housing, 
     by--
       (1) deregulating and decontrolling public housing agencies, 
     which in this Act are referred to as ``local housing and 
     management authorities'', and thereby enable them to perform 
     as property and asset managers;
       (2) providing for more flexible use of Federal assistance 
     to local housing and management authorities, allowing the 
     authorities to leverage and combine assistance amounts with 
     amounts obtained from other sources;
       (3) facilitating mixed income communities;
       (4) increasing accountability and rewarding effective 
     management of local housing and management authorities;
       (5) creating incentives and economic opportunities for 
     residents of dwelling units assisted by local housing and 
     management authorities to work and become self-sufficient; 
     and
       (6) recreating the existing rental assistance voucher 
     program so that the use of vouchers and relationships between 
     landlords and tenants under the program operate in a manner 
     that more closely resembles the private housing market.

     SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall 
     apply:
       (1) Disabled family.--The term ``disabled family'' means a 
     family whose head (or his or her spouse), or whose sole 
     member, is a person with disabilities. Such term includes 2 
     or more persons with disabilities living together, and 1 or 
     more such persons living with 1 or more persons determined 
     under the regulations of the Secretary to be essential to 
     their care or well-being.
       (2) Drug-related criminal activity.--The term ``drug-
     related criminal activity'' means the illegal manufacture, 
     sale, distribution, use, or possession with intent to 
     manufacture, sell, distribute, or use, of a controlled 
     substance (as such term is defined in section 102 of the 
     Controlled Substances Act).
       (3) Elderly families and near elderly families.--The terms 
     ``elderly family'' and ``near-elderly family'' mean a family 
     whose head (or his or her spouse), or whose sole member, is 
     an elderly person or a near-elderly person, respectively. 
     Such terms include 2 or more elderly persons or near-elderly 
     persons living together, and 1 or more such persons living 
     with 1 or more persons determined under the regulations of 
     the Secretary to be essential to their care or well-being.

[[Page H4608]]

       (4) Elderly person.--The term ``elderly person'' means a 
     person who is at least 62 years of age.
       (5) Family.--The term ``family'' includes a family with or 
     without children, an elderly family, a near-elderly family, a 
     disabled family, and a single person.
       (6) Income.--The term ``income'' means, with respect to a 
     family, income from all sources of each member of the 
     household, as determined in accordance with criteria 
     prescribed by the applicable local housing and management 
     authority and the Secretary, except that the following 
     amounts shall be excluded:
       (A) Any amounts not actually received by the family.
       (B) Any amounts that would be eligible for exclusion under 
     section 1613(a)(7) of the Social Security Act.
       (7) Indian.--The term ``Indian'' means any person 
     recognized as being an Indian, Alaska Native, or Native 
     Hawaiian by an Indian tribe, the Federal Government, or any 
     State.
       (8) Indian area.--The term ``Indian area'' means the area 
     within which an Indian housing authority is authorized to 
     provide low-income housing assistance under this Act.
       (9) Indian housing authority.--The term ``Indian housing 
     authority'' means any entity that--
       (A) is authorized to engage in or assist in the production 
     or operation of low-income housing for Indians that is 
     assisted under this Act; and
       (B) is established--
       (i) by exercise of the power of self-government of an 
     Indian tribe independent of State law; or
       (ii) by operation of State law providing specifically for 
     housing authorities for Indians, including regional housing 
     authorities in the State of Alaska.
       (10) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' means any 
     tribe, band, pueblo, group, community, or nation of Indians, 
     Alaska Natives, or Native Hawaiians.
       (11) Local housing and management authority.--The term 
     ``local housing and management authority'' is defined in 
     section 103.
       (12) Local housing management plan.--The term ``local 
     housing management plan'' means, with respect to any fiscal 
     year, the plan under section 107 of a local housing and 
     management authority for such fiscal year.
       (13) Low-income family.--The term ``low-income family'' 
     means a family whose income does not exceed 80 percent of the 
     median income for the area, except that the Secretary may, 
     for purposes of this paragraph, establish income ceilings 
     higher or lower than 80 percent of the median for the area on 
     the basis of the authority's findings that such variations 
     are necessary because of unusually high or low family 
     incomes.
       (14) Low-income housing.--The term ``low-income housing'' 
     means dwellings that comply with the requirements--
       (A) under subtitle B of title II for assistance under such 
     title for the dwellings; or
       (B) under title III for rental assistance payments under 
     such title for the dwellings.
       (15) Near-elderly person.--The term ``near-elderly person'' 
     means a person who is at least 55 years of age.
       (16) Person with disabilities.--The term ``person with 
     disabilities'' means a person who--
       (A) has a disability as defined in section 223 of the 
     Social Security Act; or
       (B) has a developmental disability as defined in section 
     102 of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of 
     Rights Act.
     Such term shall not exclude persons who have the disease of 
     acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or any conditions arising 
     from the etiologic agent for acquired immunodeficiency 
     syndrome. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     individual shall be considered a person with disabilities, 
     for purposes of eligibility for public housing under title II 
     of this Act, solely on the basis of any drug or alcohol 
     dependence. The Secretary shall consult with other 
     appropriate Federal agencies to implement the preceding 
     sentence.
       (17) Public housing.--The term ``public housing'' means 
     housing, and all necessary appurtenances thereto, that--
       (A) is low-income housing or low-income dwelling units in 
     mixed income housing (as provided in section 221(c)(2)); and
       (B)(i) is subject to an annual block grant contract under 
     title II; or
       (ii) was subject to an annual block grant contract under 
     title II (or an annual contributions contract under the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937) which is not in effect, 
     but for which occupancy is limited in accordance with the 
     requirements under section 222(a).
       (18) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Housing and Urban Development.
       (19) State.--The term ``State'' means the States of the 
     United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, any 
     other territory or possession of the United States, and 
     Indian tribes.
       (20) Very low-income family.--The term ``very low-income 
     family'' means a low-income family whose income does not 
     exceed 50 percent of the median family income for the area, 
     except that the Secretary may, for purposes of this 
     paragraph, establish income ceilings higher or lower than 50 
     percent of the median for the area on the basis of the 
     authority's findings that such variations are necessary 
     because of unusually high or low family incomes.

     SEC. 103. ORGANIZATION OF LOCAL HOUSING AND MANAGEMENT 
                   AUTHORITIES.

       (a) Requirements.--For purposes of this Act, the terms 
     ``local housing and management authority'' and ``authority'' 
     mean any entity that--
       (1) is--
       (A) a public housing agency or Indian housing authority 
     that was authorized under the United States Housing Act of 
     1937 to engage in or assist in the development or operation 
     of low-income housing;
       (B) authorized under this Act to engage in or assist in the 
     development or operation of low-income housing by any State, 
     county, municipality, or other governmental body or public 
     entity; or
       (C) an entity selected by the Secretary, pursuant to 
     subtitle B of title IV, to manage housing; and
       (2) complies with the requirements under subsection (b).
       (b) Governance.--
       (1) Board of directors.--Each local housing and management 
     authority shall have a board of directors or other form of 
     governance as prescribed in State or local law. No person may 
     be barred from serving on such board or body because of such 
     person's residency in a public housing development or status 
     as an assisted family under title III.
       (2) Resident membership.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), in 
     localities in which a local housing and management authority 
     is governed by a board of directors or other similar body, 
     the board or body shall include not less than 1 member who 
     is--
       (i) a resident of a public housing dwelling unit owned or 
     operated by the authority; or
       (ii) a member of an assisted family under title III.
       (B) Exceptions.--The requirement in subparagraph (A) with 
     respect to a resident member shall not apply to--
       (i) any State or local governing body that serves as a 
     local housing and management authority for purposes of this 
     Act and whose responsibilities include substantial activities 
     other than acting as the local housing and management 
     authority, except that such requirement shall apply to any 
     advisory committee or organization that is established by 
     such governing body and whose responsibilities relate only to 
     the governing body's functions as a local housing and 
     management authority for purposes of this Act;
       (ii) any local housing and management authority that owns 
     or operates less than 250 public housing dwelling units 
     (including any authority that does not own or operate public 
     housing);
       (iii) any local housing and management authority that 
     manages public housing consisting primarily of scattered site 
     public housing;
       (iv) any local housing and management authority in a State 
     in which State law specifically precludes public housing 
     residents or assisted families from serving on the board of 
     directors or other similar body of an authority; or
       (v) any local housing and management authority in a State 
     that requires the members of the board of directors or other 
     similar body of a local housing and management authority to 
     be salaried and to serve on a full-time basis.
       (3) Full participation.--No local housing and management 
     authority may limit or restrict the capacity or offices in 
     which a member of such board or body may serve on such board 
     or body solely because of the member's status as a resident 
     member.
       (4) Conflicts of interest.--The Secretary shall establish 
     guidelines to prevent conflicts of interest on the part of 
     members of the board or directors or governing body of a 
     local housing and management authority.
       (5) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``resident member'' means a member of the board of directors 
     or other similar governing body of a local housing and 
     management authority who is a resident of a public housing 
     dwelling unit administered or assisted by the authority or is 
     an assisted family (as such term is defined in section 371).
       (c) Establishment of Policies.--Any rules, regulations, 
     policies, standards, and procedures necessary to implement 
     policies required under section 107 to be included in the 
     local housing management plan for a local housing and 
     management authority shall be approved by the board of 
     directors or similar governing body of the authority and 
     shall be publicly available for review upon request.

     SEC. 104. DETERMINATION OF ADJUSTED INCOME.

       (a) In General.--For purposes of this Act, the term 
     ``adjusted income'' means, with respect to a family, the 
     difference between the income of the members of the family 
     residing in a dwelling unit or the persons on a lease and the 
     amount of any income exclusions for the family under 
     subsections (b) and (c), as determined by the local housing 
     and management authority.
       (b) Mandatory Exclusions From Income.--In determining 
     adjusted income, a local housing and management authority 
     shall exclude from the annual income of a family the 
     following amounts:
       (1) Elderly and disabled families.--$400 for any elderly or 
     disabled family.
       (2) Medical expenses.--The amount by which 3 percent of the 
     annual family income is exceeded by the sum of--
       (A) unreimbursed medical expenses of any elderly family;
       (B) unreimbursed medical expenses of any nonelderly family, 
     except that this subparagraph shall apply only to the extent 
     approved in appropriation Acts; and
       (C) unreimbursed reasonable attendant care and auxiliary 
     apparatus expenses for each handicapped member of the family, 
     to the extent necessary to enable any member of such family 
     (including such handicapped member) to be employed.
       (3) Child care expenses.--Any reasonable child care 
     expenses necessary to enable a member of the family to be 
     employed or to further his or her education.
       (4) Minors.--$480 for each member of the family residing in 
     the household (other than the

[[Page H4609]]

     head of the household or his or her spouse) who is under 18 
     years of age or is attending school or vocational training on 
     a full-time basis.
       (5) Child support payments.--Any payment made by a member 
     of the family for the support and maintenance of any child 
     who does not reside in the household, except that the amount 
     excluded under this paragraph may not exceed $480 for each 
     child for whom such payment is made.
       (c) Permissive Exclusions From Income.--In determining 
     adjusted income, a local housing and management authority 
     may, in the discretion of the authority, establish exclusions 
     from the annual income of a family. Such exclusions may 
     include the following amounts:
       (1) Excessive travel expenses.--Excessive travel expenses 
     in an amount not to exceed $25 per family per week, for 
     employment- or education-related travel.
       (2) Earned income.--An amount of any earned income of the 
     family, established at the discretion of the local housing 
     and management authority, which may be based on--
       (A) all earned income of the family,
       (B) the amount earned by particular members of the family;
       (C) the amount earned by families having certain 
     characteristics; or
       (D) the amount earned by families or members during certain 
     periods or from certain sources.
       (3) Others.--Such other amounts for other purposes, as the 
     local housing and management authority may establish.

     SEC. 105. LIMITATION ON ADMISSION OF DRUG OR ALCOHOL ABUSERS 
                   TO ASSISTED HOUSING.

       (a) Authority.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     a local housing and management authority may establish 
     standards for occupancy in public housing dwelling units and 
     assistance under title III, that prohibit admission to such 
     units and assistance under title III by any person--
       (1) who currently illegally uses a controlled substance; or
       (2) whose history of illegal use of a controlled substance 
     or use of alcohol, or current use of alcohol, provides 
     reasonable cause for the authority to believe that the 
     occupancy by such individual may interfere with the health, 
     safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by 
     other residents.
       (b) Consideration of Rehabilitation.--In determining 
     whether, pursuant to subsection (a), to deny admission or 
     assistance to any person based on a history of use of a 
     controlled substance or alcohol, a local housing and 
     management authority may consider whether such person--
       (1) has successfully completed a supervised drug or alcohol 
     rehabilitation program (as applicable) and is no longer 
     engaging in the illegal use of a controlled substance or use 
     of alcohol (as applicable),
       (2) has otherwise been rehabilitated successfully and is no 
     longer engaging in the illegal use of a controlled substance 
     or use of alcohol (as applicable), or
       (3) is participating in a supervised drug or alcohol 
     rehabilitation program (as applicable) and is no longer 
     engaging in the illegal use of a controlled substance or use 
     of alcohol (as applicable),
     and in making such a determination may obtain recommendations 
     of social workers, drug and alcohol counselors, probation 
     officers, and former landlords for such person.

     SEC. 106. COMMUNITY WORK AND FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY 
                   REQUIREMENT.

       (a) Requirement.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     each local housing and management authority shall require, as 
     a condition of occupancy of a public housing dwelling unit by 
     a family and of providing housing assistance under title III 
     on behalf of a family, that each adult member of the family 
     shall--
       (1) contribute not less than 8 hours of work per month 
     within the community in which the family resides; or
       (2) participate on an ongoing basis in a program designed 
     to promote economic self-sufficiency.
       (b) Exemptions.--A local housing and management authority 
     shall provide for the exemption, from the applicability of 
     the requirement under subsection (a), of each individual who 
     is--
       (1) an elderly person and unable, as determined in 
     accordance with guidelines established by the Secretary, to 
     comply with the requirement;
       (2) a person with disabilities and unable (as so 
     determined) to comply with the requirement;
       (3) working, attending school or vocational training, or 
     otherwise complying with work requirements applicable under 
     other public assistance programs, and unable (as so 
     determined) to comply with the requirement; or
       (4) otherwise physically impaired, as certified by a 
     doctor, and is therefore unable to comply with the 
     requirement.

     SEC. 107. LOCAL HOUSING MANAGEMENT PLANS.

       (a) In General.--In accordance with this section, the 
     Secretary shall provide for each local housing and management 
     authority to submit to the Secretary a local housing 
     management plan under this section for each fiscal year that 
     describes the mission of the local housing and management 
     authority and the goals, objectives, and policies of the 
     authority to meet the housing needs of low-income families in 
     the jurisdiction of the authority.
       (b) Procedures.--The Secretary shall establish requirements 
     and procedures for submission and review of plans and for the 
     contents of such plans. Such procedures shall provide for 
     local housing and management authorities to, at the option of 
     the authority, submit plans under this section together with, 
     or as part of, the comprehensive housing affordability 
     strategy under section 105 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National 
     Affordable Housing Act (or any consolidated plan 
     incorporating such strategy) for the relevant jurisdiction 
     and for concomitant review of such plans.
       (c) Contents.--A local housing management plan under this 
     section for a local housing and management authority shall 
     contain the following information relating to the upcoming 
     fiscal year for which the assistance under this Act is to be 
     made available:
       (1) Financial resources.--An operating budget for the 
     authority that includes--
       (A) a description of the financial resources available to 
     the authority;
       (B) the uses to which such resources will be committed, 
     including eligible and required activities under section 203 
     to be assisted, housing assistance to be provided under title 
     III, and administrative, management, maintenance, and capital 
     improvement activities to be carried out; and
       (C) an estimate of the market rent value of each public 
     housing development of the authority.
       (2) Population served.--A statement of the policies of the 
     authority governing eligibility, admissions, and occupancy of 
     families with respect to public housing dwelling units and 
     housing assistance under title III, including--
       (A) the requirements for eligibility for such units and 
     assistance and the method by which eligibility will be 
     determined and verified;
       (B) the requirements for selection and admissions of 
     eligible families for such units and assistance, including 
     any preferences established under section 223 or 321(c) and 
     the criteria for selection under section 222(b);
       (C) the procedures for assignment of families admitted to 
     dwelling units owned, operated, or assisted by the authority;
       (D) any standards and requirements for occupancy of public 
     housing dwelling units and units assisted under title III, 
     including conditions for continued occupancy, termination of 
     tenancy, eviction, and termination of housing assistance 
     under section 321(g);
       (E) the criteria under subsections (d) and (f) of section 
     321 for providing and denying housing assistance under title 
     III to families moving into the jurisdiction of the 
     authority;
       (F) the fair housing policy of the authority; and
       (G) the procedures for outreach efforts (including efforts 
     that are planned and that have been executed) to homeless 
     families and to entities providing assistance to homeless 
     families, in the jurisdiction of the authority.
       (3) Rent determination.--A statement of the policies of the 
     authority governing rents charged for public housing dwelling 
     units and rental contributions of assisted families under 
     title III, including--
       (A) the methods by which such rents are determined under 
     section 225 and such contributions are determined under 
     section 322;
       (B) an analysis of how such methods affect--
       (i) the ability of the authority to provide housing 
     assistance for families having a broad range of incomes;
       (ii) the affordability of housing for families having 
     incomes that do not exceed 30 percent of the median family 
     income for the area; and
       (iii) the availability of other financial resources to the 
     authority.
       (4) Quality standards for maintenance and management.--A 
     statement of the standards and policies of the authority 
     governing maintenance and management of housing owned and 
     operated by the authority, and management of the local 
     housing and management authority, including--
       (A) housing quality standards in effect pursuant to 
     sections 232 and 328 and any certifications required under 
     such sections;
       (B) routine and preventative maintenance policies for 
     public housing;
       (C) emergency and disaster plans for public housing;
       (D) rent collection and security policies for public 
     housing;
       (E) priorities and improvements for management of public 
     housing; and
       (F) priorities and improvements for management of the 
     authority, including improvement of electronic information 
     systems to facilitate managerial capacity and efficiency.
       (5) Grievance procedure.--A statement of the grievance 
     procedures of the authority under section 110.
       (6) Capital improvements.--With respect to public housing 
     developments owned or operated by the authority, a plan 
     describing--
       (A) the capital improvements necessary to ensure long-term 
     physical and social viability of the developments; and
       (B) the priorities of the authority for capital 
     improvements based on analysis of available financial 
     resources, consultation with residents, and health and safety 
     considerations.
       (7) Demolition and disposition.--With respect to public 
     housing developments owned or operated by the authority--
       (A) a description of any such housing to be demolished or 
     disposed of under subtitle E of title II;
       (B) a timetable for such demolition or disposition; and
       (C) any information required under section 261(h) with 
     respect to such demolition or disposition.
       (8) Designation of housing for elderly and disabled 
     families.--With respect to public housing developments owned 
     or operated by the authority, a description of any 
     developments (or portions thereof) that the authority has 
     designated or will designate for occupancy by elderly and 
     disabled families in accordance with section 227 and any 
     information required under section 227(c) for such designated 
     developments.
       (9) Conversion of public housing.--With respect to public 
     housing owned or operated by the authority, a description of 
     any building or buildings that the authority is required 
     under section 203(b) to convert to housing assistance

[[Page H4610]]

     under title III, an analysis of such buildings showing that 
     the buildings meet the requirements under such section for 
     such conversion, and a statement of the amount of grant 
     amounts under title II to be used for rental assistance under 
     title III.
       (10) Homeownership activities.--A description of any 
     homeownership programs of the authority under subtitle D of 
     title II or section 329 for the authority and the 
     requirements and assistance available under such programs.
       (11) Coordination with welfare agencies.--A description of 
     how the authority will coordinate with State welfare agencies 
     to ensure that public housing residents and assisted families 
     will be provided with access to resources to assist in 
     obtaining employment and achieving self-sufficiency.
       (12) Safety and crime prevention.--A description of the 
     requirements established by the authority that ensure the 
     safety of public housing residents, facilitate the authority 
     undertaking crime prevention measures (such as community 
     policing, where appropriate), allow resident input and 
     involvement, and allow for creative methods to increase 
     public housing resident safety by coordinating crime 
     prevention efforts between the authority and local law 
     enforcement officials.
       (d) 5-Year Plan.--Each local housing management plan under 
     this section for a local housing and management authority 
     shall contain, with respect to the 5-year period beginning 
     with the fiscal year for which the plan is submitted, the 
     following information:
       (1) Statement of mission.--A statement of the mission of 
     the authority for serving the needs of low-income families in 
     the jurisdiction of authority during such period.
       (2) Goals and objectives.--A statement of the goals and 
     objectives of the authority that will enable the authority to 
     serve the needs identified pursuant to paragraph (1) during 
     such period.
       (3) Capital improvement overview.--If the authority will 
     provide capital improvements for public housing developments 
     during such period, an overview of such improvements, the 
     rationale for such improvements, and an analysis of how such 
     improvements will enable the authority to meet its goals, 
     objectives, and mission.
       (e) Citizen Participation.--
       (1) In general.--Before submitting a plan under this 
     section or an amendment under section 108(f) to a plan, a 
     local housing and management authority shall make the plan or 
     amendment publicly available in a manner that affords 
     affected public housing residents and assisted families under 
     title III, citizens, public agencies, entities providing 
     assistance and services for homeless families, and other 
     interested parties an opportunity, for a period not shorter 
     than 60 days and ending at a time that reasonably provides 
     for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (2), to 
     examine its content and to submit comments to the authority.
       (2) Consideration of comments.--A local housing and 
     management authority shall consider any comments or views 
     provided pursuant to paragraph (1) in preparing a final plan 
     or amendment for submission to the Secretary. A summary of 
     such comments or views shall be attached to the plan, 
     amendment, or report submitted. The submitted 
     plan, amendment, or report shall be made publicly 
     available upon submission.
       (f) Local Review.--Before submitting a plan under this 
     section to the Secretary, the local housing and management 
     authority shall submit the plan to any local elected official 
     or officials responsible for appointing the members of the 
     board of directors (or other similar governing body) of the 
     local housing and management authority for review and 
     approval.
       (g) Plans for Small LHMA's and LHMA's Administering Only 
     Rental Assistance.--The Secretary shall establish 
     requirements for submission of plans under this section and 
     the information to be included in such plans applicable to 
     housing and management authorities that own or operate less 
     than 250 public housing dwelling units and shall establish 
     requirements for such submission and information applicable 
     to authorities that only administer housing assistance under 
     title III (and do not own or operate public housing). Such 
     requirements shall waive any requirements under this section 
     that the Secretary determines are burdensome or unnecessary 
     for such agencies.

     SEC. 108. REVIEW OF PLANS.

       (a) Review and Notice.--
       (1) Review.--The Secretary shall conduct a limited review 
     of each local housing management plan submitted to the 
     Secretary to ensure that the plan is complete and complies 
     with the requirements of section 107. The Secretary shall 
     have the discretion to review a plan only to the extent that 
     the Secretary considers review is necessary.
       (2) Notice.--The Secretary shall notify each local housing 
     and management authority submitting a plan whether the plan 
     complies with such requirements not later than 75 days after 
     receiving the plan. If the Secretary does not notify the 
     local housing and management authority, as required under 
     this subsection and subsection (b), the plan shall be 
     considered, for purposes of this Act, to have been determined 
     to comply with the requirements under section 107 and the 
     authority shall be considered to have been notified of 
     compliance upon the expiration of such 75-day period.
       (b) Notice of Reasons for Determination of Noncompliance.--
     If the Secretary determines that a plan, as submitted, does 
     not comply with the requirements under section 107, the 
     Secretary shall specify in the notice under subsection (a) 
     the reasons for the noncompliance and any modifications 
     necessary for the plan to meet the requirements under section 
     107.
       (c) Standards for Determination of Noncompliance.--The 
     Secretary may determine that a plan does not comply with the 
     requirements under section 107 only if--
       (1) the plan is incomplete in significant matters required 
     under such section;
       (2) there is evidence available to the Secretary that 
     challenges, in a substantial manner, any information provided 
     in the plan; or
       (3) the Secretary determines that the plan violates the 
     purposes of this Act because it fails to provide housing that 
     will be viable on a long-term basis at a reasonable cost.
       (d) Treatment of Existing Plans.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this title, a local housing and management 
     authority shall be considered to have submitted a plan under 
     this section if the authority has submitted to the Secretary 
     a comprehensive plan under section 14(e) of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect immediately before the 
     enactment of this Act) or under the comprehensive improvement 
     assistance program under such section 14, and the Secretary 
     has approved such plan, before January 1, 1994. The Secretary 
     shall provide specific procedures and requirements for such 
     authorities to amend such plans by submitting only such 
     additional information as is necessary to comply with the 
     requirements of section 107.
       (e) Actions to Change Plan.--A local housing and management 
     authority that has submitted a plan under section 107 may 
     change actions or policies described in the plan before 
     submission and review of the plan of the authority for the 
     next fiscal year only if--
       (1) in the case of costly or nonroutine changes, the 
     authority submits to the Secretary an amendment to the plan 
     under subsection (f) which is reviewed in accordance with 
     such subsection; or
       (2) in the case of inexpensive or routine changes, the 
     authority describes such changes in such local housing 
     management plan for the next fiscal year.
       (f) Amendments to Plan.--
       (1) In general.--During the annual or 5-year period covered 
     by the plan for a local housing and management authority, the 
     authority may submit to the Secretary any amendments to the 
     plan.
       (2) Review.--The Secretary shall conduct a limited review 
     of each proposed amendment submitted under this subsection to 
     determine whether the plan, as amended by the amendment, 
     complies with the requirements of section 107 and notify each 
     local housing and management authority submitting the 
     amendment whether the plan, as amended, complies with such 
     requirements not later than 30 days after receiving the 
     amendment. If the Secretary determines that a plan, as 
     amended, does not comply with the requirements under section 
     107, such notice shall indicate the reasons for the 
     noncompliance and any modifications necessary for the plan to 
     meet the requirements under section 107. If the Secretary 
     does not notify the local housing and management authority as 
     required under this paragraph, the plan, as amended, shall be 
     considered, for purposes of this section, to comply with the 
     requirements under section 107.
       (3) Standards for determination of noncompliance.--The 
     Secretary may determine that a plan, as amended by a proposed 
     amendment, does not comply with the requirements under 
     section 107 only if--
       (A) the plan, as amended, would be subject to a 
     determination of noncompliance in accordance with the 
     provisions of subsection (c); or
       (B) the Secretary determines that--
       (i) the proposed amendment is plainly inconsistent with the 
     activities specified in the plan;
       (ii) there is evidence that challenges, in a substantial 
     manner, any information contained in the amendment; or
       (3) the Secretary determines that the plan, as amended, 
     violates the purposes of this Act because it fails to provide 
     housing that will be viable on a long-term basis at a 
     reasonable cost.
       (4) Amendments to extend time of performance.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, the 
     Secretary may not determine that any amendment to the plan of 
     a local housing and management authority that extends the 
     time for performance of activities assisted with amounts 
     provided under this title fails to comply with the 
     requirements under section 107 if the Secretary has not 
     provided the amount of assistance set forth in the plan or 
     has not provided the assistance in a timely manner.

     SEC. 109. PET OWNERSHIP.

       A resident of a public housing dwelling unit or an assisted 
     dwelling unit (as such term is defined in section 371) may 
     own common household pets or have common household pets 
     present in the dwelling unit of such resident to the extent 
     allowed by the local housing and management authority or the 
     owner of the assisted dwelling unit, respectively. 
     Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, pet ownership in 
     housing assisted under this Act that is federally assisted 
     rental housing for the elderly or handicapped (as such term 
     is defined in section 227 of the Housing and Urban-Rural 
     Recovery Act of 1983) shall be governed by the provisions of 
     section 227 of such Act.

     SEC. 110. ADMINISTRATIVE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE.

       (a) Requirements.--Each local housing and management 
     authority receiving assistance under this Act shall establish 
     and implement an administrative grievance procedure under 
     which residents of public housing and assisted families under 
     title III will--
       (1) be advised of the specific grounds of any proposed 
     adverse local housing and management authority action;
       (2) have an opportunity for a hearing before an impartial 
     party upon timely request within a reasonable period of time;
       (3) have an opportunity to examine any documents or records 
     or regulations related to the proposed action;

[[Page H4611]]

       (4) be entitled to be represented by another person of 
     their choice at any hearing;
       (5) be entitled to ask questions of witnesses and have 
     others make statements on their behalf; and
       (6) be entitled to receive a written decision by the local 
     housing and management authority on the proposed action.
       (b) Exclusion From Administrative Procedure of Grievances 
     Concerning Evictions From Public Housing.--A local housing 
     and management authority shall exclude from its procedure 
     established under subsection (a) any grievance concerning an 
     eviction from or termination of tenancy in public housing in 
     any State which requires that, prior to eviction, a resident 
     be provided a hearing in court which the Secretary determines 
     provides the basic elements of due process.
       (c) Costs of Grievance Procedure.--The costs of 
     administering a grievance procedure under this section 
     (including costs of retaining counsel) shall be considered 
     operating activities of a local housing and management 
     authority.

     SEC. 111. HEADQUARTERS RESERVE FUND.

       (a) Annual Reservation of Amounts.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the Secretary may retain not more 
     than 3 percent of the amounts appropriated to carry out title 
     II for any fiscal year to provide incremental housing 
     assistance under title III in accordance with this section.
       (b) Use of Amounts.--Any amounts that are retained under 
     subsection (a) shall be available for subsequent allocation 
     to specific areas and communities, and may only be used for 
     the Department of Housing and Urban Development and--
       (1) unforeseen housing needs resulting from natural and 
     other disasters;
       (2) housing needs resulting from emergencies, as certified 
     by the Secretary, other than such disasters;
       (3) housing needs related to a settlement of litigation, 
     including settlement of fair housing litigation; and
       (4) providing technical assistance, training, and 
     electronic information systems for the Department of Housing 
     and Urban Development and local housing and management 
     authorities to improve management of such authorities.

     SEC. 112. LABOR STANDARDS.

       (a) In General.--Any contract for grants, sale, or lease 
     pursuant to this Act relating to public housing shall contain 
     the following provisions:
       (1) Operation.--A provision requiring that not less than 
     the wages prevailing in the locality, as determined or 
     adopted (subsequent to a determination under applicable State 
     or local law) by the Secretary, shall be paid to all 
     contractors and persons employed in the operation of the low-
     income housing development involved.
       (2) Production.--A provision that not less than the wages 
     prevailing in the locality, as predetermined by the Secretary 
     of Labor pursuant to the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276a-
     276a-5), shall be paid to all laborers and mechanics employed 
     in the production of the development involved.
     The Secretary shall require certification as to compliance 
     with the provisions of this section before making any payment 
     under such contract.
       (b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) and the provisions relating 
     to wages (pursuant to subsection (a)) in any contract for 
     grants, sale, or lease pursuant to this Act relating to 
     public housing, shall not apply to any of the following 
     individuals:
       (1) Volunteers.--Any individual who--
       (A) performs services for which the individual volunteered;
       (B)(i) does not receive compensation for such services; or
       (ii) is paid expenses, reasonable benefits, or a nominal 
     fee for such services; and
       (C) is not otherwise employed at any time in the 
     construction work.
       (2) Residents employed by lhma.--Any resident of a public 
     housing development who is an employee of the local housing 
     and management authority for the development and performs 
     services in connection with the operation or production of a 
     low-income housing project owned or managed by such 
     authority.

     SEC. 113. NONDISCRIMINATION.

       (a) In General.--No person in the United States shall on 
     the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, or sex 
     be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, 
     or be subjected to discrimination under any program or 
     activity funded in whole or in part with amounts made 
     available under this Act. Any prohibition against 
     discrimination on the basis of age under the Age 
     Discrimination Act of 1975 or with respect to an otherwise 
     qualified handicapped individual as provided in section 504 
     of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 shall also apply to any 
     such program or activity.
       (b) Civil Rights Compliance.--Each local housing and 
     management authority that receives grant amounts under this 
     Act shall use such amounts and carry out its local housing 
     management plan approved under section 108 in conformity with 
     title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing 
     Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age 
     Discrimination Act of 1975, and the Americans With 
     Disabilities Act of 1990, and shall affirmatively further 
     fair housing.

     SEC. 114. EFFECTIVE DATE AND REGULATIONS.

       (a) Effective Date.--The provisions of this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act shall take effect and shall apply 
     on the date of the enactment of this Act, unless such 
     provisions or amendments specifically provide for 
     effectiveness or applicability on another date certain.
       (b) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue any regulations 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
       (c) Rule of Construction.--Any failure by the Secretary to 
     issue any regulations authorized under subsection (b) shall 
     not affect the effectiveness of any provision of this Act or 
     any amendment made by this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title I?


                 amendment no. 35 offered by mr. vento

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 35 offered by Mr. Vento: Page 11, line 2, 
     strike ``authority's'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``Secretary's''.
       Page 13, line 10, strike ``authority's'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``Secretary's''.

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, this is, I suppose in some minds, a 
technical amendment. What the bill has done is provides the flexibility 
for the Secretary, based on findings by the local housing management 
authority, to change the 50 percent very low-income definition to raise 
it or lower it, depending upon local conditions, and to, on the 80 
percent, and this really deals with the percentages in the bill, on the 
80 percent, to change that, in fact; either raise or lower it, 
depending on local circumstances and findings.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the Secretary having this 
flexibility. In fact, I think that it is necessary. I am concerned that 
the bill appears to limit this solely to the local housing management's 
findings. I think it is clear to me that since the Secretary has to 
approve it, that indeed he has and should set some standards as to what 
those findings are.
  I do not think it is probable that 3,400 different housing 
authorities will in fact seek to modify these percentages, and I think 
it is probably somewhat unrealistic to assume that they will develop 
the expertise independently. I think that they have some insights, but 
I doubt that they on their own, without any type of guidance, would be 
able to in fact establish this without some signal, some direction from 
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
  So my amendment would alter that so that instead of the local housing 
authority making the findings, that in fact it is the Secretary. I just 
think it is important from the onset to understand the significance of 
changing these definitions in law, not handing that over to a State and 
local government authority, whatever the entity may be, the local 
housing management authority, but in fact to keep that definition 
responsibility in the hands of the Secretary, one that has to, in any 
case, approve this, and I think should be, as I said, involved from the 
beginning with regards to findings. This would restore what essentially 
is current law.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not aware with any problems that have occurred 
with that. I think it would be clear, as I said, that local housing 
management authorities would certainly be consulted or be expected to 
in fact put together the data, so I would be happy to yield to the 
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Lazio, for 
further explanation. I do not recall any testimony or any problem with 
this issue, so I look at it as a technical amendment.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, my disagreement with him on this issue has to do with 
who initiates the changes that would basically define low and very low 
income for purposes of making adjustments to basically definitional 
issues.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman would suggest that the Secretary in 
Washington ought to initiate this. Our position is to have maximum 
local control, and that the local community would be the entity to 
initiate the request, the change in definition in terms of the 
threshold, what is median income and

[[Page H4612]]

what is not sufficient median income to qualify.
  The Secretary, obviously, in either case has a role. In our model, we 
would suggest that the local government, the local community, initiates 
it. The Secretary is consulted and has, in essence, they ability to 
preclude the change. The gentleman's opinion apparently is that the 
Secretary would have all the discretion to do this and the decision-
making would be centralized in Washington.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the Secretary 
makes the decision in this particular instance in the gentleman's 
amendment, so we agree on who has the authority. The issue is one of 
the findings that such variations are necessary, because of unusually 
high or low income criteria. This is just the findings issue. Clearly 
what the intent is and I think what occurs under current law, this is 
current law, is that the local housing management authority or public 
housing authority has to initiate such process in saying that we have a 
problem. But we are just talking about the findings issue is really 
what we are talking about.
  I do not think the gentleman and I necessarily disagree about who 
initiates it, because clearly the housing authority has to play a key 
role here. It is just a question of findings. The ultimate authority is 
in Washington no matter what, because the Secretary, if he is 
dissatisfied or she is dissatisfied with the information, will simply 
reject it. So I do not know, I do not think it is a question of 
authority, it is simply a question of clarifying the issue of findings, 
in my mind.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I 
just would like to query whether the gentleman believes this is 
something that, if we continue a dialogue and discussion through the 
process moving toward conference, if we can resolve by finding a 
compromise we can both live with.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, that is reasonable. I think it is not 
something I perceive as a problem. If there is some other basic reason 
the gentleman is resisting I'd be interested in learning such. I would 
be happy to work with the subcommittee chairman on the basis of that 
assurance and interest. We had a long debate on the previous amendment 
and we resolved that successfully.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Fields of Louisiana

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Fields of Louisiana: In section 
     103(b) of the bill (as amended by the manager's amendment), 
     strike paragraph (2) (relating to resident membership) and 
     insert the following new paragraph:
       (2) Resident membership.--
       (A) In general.--In localities in which a local housing and 
     management authority is governed by a board of directors or 
     other similar body, not less than 25 percent of the members 
     of the board or body shall be individuals who are--
       (i) residents of public housing dwelling units owned or 
     operated by the authority; or
       (ii) members of assisted families under title III.
       (B) Election and training.--Members of the board of 
     directors or other similar body by reason of subparagraph (A) 
     shall be selected for such membership in an election in which 
     only residents of public housing dwelling units owned or 
     operated by the authority and members of assisted families 
     under title III who are assisted by the authority are 
     eligible to vote. The authority shall provide such members 
     with training appropriate to assist them to carry out their 
     responsibilities as members of the board or other similar 
     body.
       Section 103(b)(5) of the bill (as amended by the manager's 
     amendment), strike subparagraph (A) (relating to the 
     definition of ``elected public housing resident member'').

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana (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 
Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very 
simple amendment. It should be a noncontroversial amendment because it 
does not deal with the preamble, it deals with the substance of the 
bill.
  This amendment will, quite frankly speaking, simply provide that the 
boards that will be in place across this country that will regulate 
public housing must be composed of at least 25 percent of those 
individuals who live in public housing. This is at a time, Mr. 
Chairman, when we want to give local tenants more input into the 
decisionmaking process, and this amendment is right along those lines.
  Twenty-five percent of those individuals who are in public housing 
being on a board, that means that about 75 percent will not be in 
public housing. Although that is not a mandate in this amendment, it 
can very possibly be that way.
  If you have a 4-member board, Mr. Chairman, only 1 member under this 
amendment will be from the public housing; 8 members, 2 members; a 12-
member board, only 3 members; 16, 4 members. So 25 percent of whatever 
board we have will consist of people from the public housing who live 
there every day.
  Second, Mr. Chairman, if there is any question about training those 
individuals who live in public housing, whether or not they are able to 
make managerial decisions, whether or not they are able to conduct 
themselves in a manner that is conducive to finances and things of that 
nature, each of these people, each of these individuals will be 
trained. The amendment does not deviate from the present language in 
the bill. It provides for training among those members who will come 
from the public housing to serve on those particular boards.
  Last, Mr. Chairman, I would like to state that many public housing 
boards across this country now include members from public housing. As 
a matter of fact, it makes it much more conducive for implementing 
programs because the tenants are in a better position to know what in 
fact takes place on a day-to-day basis in those public housing 
facilities all across this country.
  So this is an amendment that simply allows tenants to participate in 
the decisionmaking process in this country, and I do not think there is 
any opposition from the other side of the aisle.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman if 
this is the same amendment that is being offered that was printed 
earlier, listed as Amendment No. 4.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. This is the same. After the manager's 
amendment was adopted, I had to make a few minor modifications, but the 
language is the same.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield 
further, if I might see that first.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to share it 
with the gentleman. It is the exact amendment that I prefiled and was 
printed in the Record. The only change in this amendment versus the 
printed amendment is to the different language in the different parts 
of the bill because of the manager's amendment. So this amendment was 
to comply with the manager's amendment that was adopted by this House.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield once 
again, if I can see a copy of that language, it will help facilitate 
our discussion, I believe, if we have that.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I turned in 12 copies. I would 
be happy to share this copy with the gentleman from New York if the 
gentleman does not have a copy of the amendment. It is the exact 
amendment that I introduced earlier. The only change is the change in 
location.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, I wonder if the gentleman can point out the differences in 
the original printed version relative to the corrections that he made 
after the adoption of the manager's amendment.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, in the manager's amendment, as 
the gentleman from New York is aware, the section that deals with the 
board of directors, the manager's amendment calls for an election of 
one

[[Page H4613]]

tenant on each board. This amendment simply went, as a result of the 
manager's amendment, my amendment was changed to deal with that same 
language, to change the number from 1 to 25 percent.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield 
further, could you just give me the precise language that was changed, 
if that is feasible?
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, it is the same language. The 
only difference is the difference in sections.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if I may make the 
suggestion to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] that we simply 
allow the original amendment which the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Fields] filed.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest). The time of the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Fields of Louisiana was allowed to proceed 
for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. It would be my suggestion that we go 
back to the original Fields amendment that was filed prior to the 
manager's amendment and simply ask that the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Lazio] allow my technical and conforming changes made to the 
amendment after its potential adoption to reflect the changes that are 
contained in the manager's amendment.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield 
further, I am informed that part of this amendment strikes almost two 
pages of language involving exemptions for certain public housing 
authorities, so this is not technical in nature. As a nature of fact, 
it goes to the heart of the manager's amendment with respect to this 
particular provision.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Would the gentleman have any objections to 
withdrawing this amendment and going back to the original amendment, 
since the gentleman is quite aware of the original amendment, because 
it is not my intent to try to sneak an amendment on the gentleman. As 
the gentleman knows, this amendment is the identical amendment as the 
original amendment that was introduced by the gentleman, and that was 
printed in the Record.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield 
further, the printed amendment that I have before me, printed as 
amendment No. 4, strikes the language that is in question. I would like 
to think that the gentleman's concerns to allow for a direct election 
to the board, direct election by the board, were met in the manager's 
amendment.
  I think the gentleman wants to go much further than I think is 
appropriate, quite frankly, with respect to some of the other 
provisions, including establishing a quota of 25 percent, technical 
training that I think gets us back into that micromanaging model that I 
am trying desperately to move away from, and also striking some of the 
exemptions that I will help make this workable in terms of direct 
election.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw his amendment?
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw the amendment that I introduced today and be allowed to speak 
to the original amendment that was printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is 
withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


           Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Fields of Louisiana

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Fields of Louisiana:
       Page 14, strike line 18 and all that follows through page 
     16, line 18, and insert the following:
       (A) In general.--In localities in which a local housing and 
     management authority is governed by a board of directors or 
     other similar body, not less than 25 percent of the members 
     of the board or body shall be individuals who are--
       (i) residents of public housing dwelling units owned or 
     operated by the authority; or
       (ii) members of assisted families under title III.
       (B) Election and training.--Members of the board of 
     directors or other similar body by reason of subparagraph (A) 
     shall be selected for such membership in an election in which 
     only residents of public housing dwelling units owned or 
     operated by the authority and members of assisted families 
     under title III who are assisted by the authority are 
     eligible to vote. The authority shall provide such members 
     with training appropriate to assist them to carry out their 
     responsibilities as members of the board or other similar 
     body.

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply provides 
that 25 percent of all the boards of directors across the country will 
consist of 25 percent of tenants. Twenty-five percent of those 
individuals who sit around the table and make decisions on how public 
housing works in America will be tenants.
  It is a very straightforward amendment. There is nothing complicated 
about it. If there is a board of four, then one member will according 
to this amendment come from public housing.
  Second, this amendment will also provide, as I stated earlier, for 
training. So anyone who has any question about individuals being able 
to make major decisions, each individual who is elected to the board 
will be provided adequate training.
  In terms of who will elect these members, these members will be 
elected by bona fide housing residents. The housing residents will meet 
and elect their representatives to the board, and those individuals 
will serve based on a time that is enumerated by the rules and the 
regulations of that particular board.
  If there are no objections to this amendment, I suggest its adoption.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Fields 
amendment.
  I am not quite sure what the gentleman is attempting to add but I 
think I am right in understanding some of the things that he is 
eliminating. He is eliminating, as I understand it, the exceptions 
which begin on page 15, subparagraph B, and specifically on lines 22 
through lines 24, and on to page 16, lines 1 and 2. He is eliminating 
the exception for local housing and management authorities that own or 
operate less than 250 public housing units, including any authority 
that does not own or operate public housing. We have had substantial 
debate on this issue.
  This Member has strong objection from his own State--for example, 
from the city of Omaha--to in fact requiring, in contrast to State law, 
that a resident be a member of the public housing authority. But I 
certainly have strenuous objections to the smaller housing authorities 
also have this requirement.
  I think my colleagues should know that in my State, for example, we 
once had the second largest number of public housing units in the 
country. We started quite early in the process. Many of them are for 
senior citizens. A great many of them have less than 30 units across 
the whole State. That is especially true in my district and in the 
district of the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett]. It would be not 
only difficult and in contrast to State law to have residents 
automatically being placed on the public housing authority for those 
units, it would be unworkable.
  We have had this debate before. I think we are bending an exceptional 
amount already in suggesting that in fact for the larger housing units 
you have a resident that becomes a member of the board, but to take it 
down to the small housing units is something that this member cannot 
accept in representing his constituents. It is unworkable in the small 
cities and the villages in my district that have these small housing 
authorities. It is in contrast to State law. We are exempting the State 
law.
  Therefore, I have to rise in strong objection to the gentleman's 
amendment which would remove this exception.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I appreciate the gentleman's comment, but I 
am having a hard time understanding

[[Page H4614]]

how a board that consists of 15 Members is OK to have one tenant from 
the public housing but a board that consists of five or four is not 
acceptable. I thought the gentleman's philosophy, and that is one of 
the reasons why I introduced the amendment, was to give tenants an 
opportunity to participate.
  I see that the gentleman is not adverse to tenant participation 
because the gentleman has spoken to that point, and I cannot understand 
why just because there is a small housing facility versus a large, that 
those tenants should be denied the opportunity to participate.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming my time, I would say that under State law 
public housing authorities in my State have 5 members. You are 
mandating that at least one of those members automatically, despite the 
recommendations of the city council or the village board of trustees in 
my State that appoints the housing authority, must appoint one person 
from the residency of that public housing.
  In many cases these housing units are exclusively for senior 
citizens. In most cases they really are. This is too much intrusion in 
local control and decisions about who that city council, that village 
board of trustees wants to have on the housing authority. In many cases 
they in fact do appoint it but that ought to be a decision that is made 
by the city council, the governing body of that particular community. 
That is why I object to the gentleman's amendment.

                              {time}  1945

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] for 
the insight and the vision that he has had with respect to this 
legislation. I have heard my good friend from Nebraska, and I would 
simply like to offer an explanation as it relates to a local situation. 
He has mentioned a local community and I would like to mention one as 
well in Houston, where we have been dealing with a public housing 
problem for a number of years.
  There would be many that would come and suggest there are reasons why 
we have this problem: Federal regulations, the disagreement, if you 
will, between the local parties, lack of funding, lack of priority. I 
would offer to say that maybe the reason why we have this problem is 
that we have not brought parties together to be able to discuss how 
best to solve and create good public housing, good, clean public 
housing, with the involvement of residents.
  I like that word ``residents,'' as opposed to ``tenants.'' It gives a 
certain stakeholder's role to those in public housing.
  This amendment the gentleman offers is a positive amendment that is 
instructive. Not only does he provide for an opportunity for 
participants, for residents to participate, but he gives them training, 
the training that any board member would bring maybe from their work 
experience or business experience, he then allows those residents to 
have the same kind of training to be able to be part of a management 
system.
  Has anyone seen their local United Ways, where they have attempted to 
reach out into the community? Our United Ways used to be a board of 
corporate CEO's. Those are the only people that could participate. They 
collected money and decided how it was to be distributed. We got wise 
until Houston realized United Way was a community organization, and 
that means they had to reach out to local community activists and mix 
them with corporate leaders and begin to solve the community's 
problems. United Way sought diversity on its board, and in doing so, 
they trained those activists and local community individuals to be on 
the United Way board.
  This is the very same approach. This allows the residents of that 
particular housing entity, that housing development, to be able to 
participate, and it gives them the necessary training.
  I am not sure whether or not we suffer in local communities with 
units under a certain number where we increase the number of residents. 
I am not sure that is detrimental when in fact in most cases the 
dominant participants will be selected from the community and will be 
able to work with a lesser number of residents. So I am unsure of the 
difficulty in allowing the Fields amendment to go forward.
  I applaud him for this amendment. I have seen over the past 17 years 
in Houston where we have had strife and disagreement because we have 
not had the involvement of our residents to solve a problem, to provide 
clean and decent public housing. It is not a question of whether we 
demolish, it is not a question of whether we keep units, it is a 
question of whether people can have a meeting of the minds. You cannot 
have a meeting of the mind when you have residents standing on the 
outside with the door closed. We need to affirmatively bring them 
inside. Twenty-five percent is a minimal number, it is a fair number. 
It is a fair number for smaller units, and it is a fair number for 
larger units.
  Mr. Chairman, I applaud the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] for 
his vision, and would solicit the support for this amendment. I would 
simply say to my colleagues in opposition, we cannot do any less than 
our civic boards across the Nation. Let us diversify, let us include, 
let us solve this Nation's housing problems, not only by ourselves, but 
including those who are most affected, and that is the residents. I 
support the passage of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in support of this very important 
amendment.
  Having a place to call home, no matter how modest, is a cornerstone 
of the American dream. It is the goal of every family. A home is not 
just a place to live; it is also a place where individuals should and 
must have a voice.
  This amendment would go a long way in creating a voice for residents 
of public housing in the decisionmaking process that affect their 
homes. By requiring that 25 percent of the board of directors of local 
housing authorities be residents of public housing, or persons 
receiving Federal rental assistance, the best interests of resident's 
would be served.
  To ensure that those who will serve in this capacity are truly 
representative, they will be elected by the residents and be given 
sufficient training to fulfill their obligation to their community.
  This amendment will inject fairness into this legislation and allow 
for residents who are personally invested in public housing to have a 
voice in the decisionmaking process.
  I would like to thank Representative Fields for bringing this 
important amendment before the House for consideration.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman from Louisiana's 
amendment. I think it is a worthwhile amendment, and it is a consistent 
amendment with what the chairman said about his desire to put public 
housing into the hands of the tenants or the residents.
  As a matter of fact, I have heard that statement made several times 
this evening, that it is the chairman's desire, it is the desire of the 
Republican Party, it is the desire of the leadership, to put public 
housing in the hand of the residents, to give them more power to make 
decisions about their lives and about their living.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, this is the way to do it. I understand very well 
how it works now. As a matter of fact, many cities across this Nation 
simply appoint people who are well connected. You know the mayor in 
some cities and the mayor is making the appointment. If you have been 
involved in the campaign, if you know a contributor, what have you, you 
get an appointment.
  The same thing is true with the members of the city council. They 
appoint their friends and cronies and those politically connected. That 
is okay. I guess there should be some payoff for those who are 
supportive.
  But the fact of the matter is, residents have been excluded from 
decisions about their daily living. We have these resident councils in 
each of the housing authorities or the projects. However, oftentimes 
they are kind of left to try and be involved in ways that they do not 
really know how to be involved.
  We have the residents who are supposed to be organized at each site. 
Oftentimes they are not getting any training. They do not even know 
when a board meeting takes place. They do not receive the notices, they 
are not encouraged to be at the board meetings. The agendas are 
developed without their input.

[[Page H4615]]

  It is time for us to make sure that we mean what we say. If in fact 
we have the resident councils at each site and we then have the area 
councils, and somehow they are supposed to be involved in decision 
making, then we must make sure that they have the ultimate involvement, 
the ultimate involvement, which is that they work their way up to the 
board.
  The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] is saying in his amendment 
that at each of these local housing projects they would have an 
opportunity to vote. They would have an opportunity to recommend to 
those who do the appointing, those that they think will serve them well 
at the board.

  You talk about residents in public housing projects who somehow do 
not seem to understand what happens and the kinds of decisions the 
management must make. Well, if you want people to understand the budget 
and how it works and whether or not they can have revitalized 
apartments, whether or not they can get new screens on the doors, 
whether or not they can change the heating systems, they have to 
understand how much money is available. If they do not understand the 
money, then they do not understand what you claim are management 
problems or how to help make decisions about how best to use the money.
  I think residents have a lot of input that they need to be able to 
give. They know more about these buildings, about these grounds, and 
about the communities they live in than most of the political 
appointees, who never go to these housing projects, will ever know, and 
I think they deserve to be at the board meetings helping to formulate 
those agendas and giving input that is going to make good sense.
  I think they will have some cost effective suggestions about how best 
to manage. I think they will know how to save money. I think they could 
tell the board about the personnel and the workers who are getting paid 
and about what they are doing and that they are not doing.
  The board members do not know that now. They are not out in these 
housing projects. But I can tell you, the people who live there can 
tell you what the maintenance crew is doing and what they are not 
doing, if they can ever get to a board meeting. They are not encouraged 
to be at the board meetings, they are not wanted at those board 
meetings, their opinions are not respected. That is why you see some 
resistance to having them on boards.
  It really does not make good sense to say it is all right to have 
them, maybe one, if there is a big housing authority, and maybe none if 
there is a small housing authority. That does not have anything to do 
with big or small. If you have got five members on a small housing 
authority board and five members on a large housing authority board, 
they both deserve representation, and it makes no difference what their 
size is.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. This is true empowerment. 
This is true respect for residents. I ask support for the Fields 
amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my good friend from Louisiana's 
amendment. I think we have heard a lot of rhetoric about the fact that 
we want to provide for local control of local housing authorities, and 
I can think of nothing more important than making certain that the 
people that actually live in these projects are provided some say in 
the direction that the projects are going to take and the kind of 
management and control that those projects take.
  I have understood some of the concerns of my friend from Nebraska 
[Mr. Bereuter] with regard to some of the smaller housing projects that 
constitute authorities in a rural state like Nebraska, which is very 
different than perhaps some of the problems that we face in places like 
Massachusetts.
  In Boston, I found specifically in projects in my own district that 
there are some very, very large urban projects that would be greatly 
improved if we get more tenant control and more tenant say in the 
future of those projects, where how many units, what kinds of units, 
income mix, and a whole range of other issues could have some input 
directly by the tenant.
  So I think the overall goal of tenant input is very, very important. 
I am hopeful we could find ways of working out an agreement on the 
Fields amendment that will somehow provide for exemptions for those 
cases such that the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] referred to, 
where we have very, very small numbers or clusters of units that would 
not apply, and in fact where this amendment might create a needless 
burden.
  But where this is an appropriate use of an authority's response to 
the needs of the tenants, I think this could be a very, very useful 
tool. I would hope that we might be able to find a way of working out 
some of the concerns that we have.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Louisiana and 
myself have reached an agreement that satisfies my concern. He would 
simply remove the exemptions. But the first part of his amendment, he 
will provide for at least 25 percent of those housing authorities 
having over 250 units, whereas the existing bill provides 25 percent.
  Now, 25 percent of a five-member board, for example, of the city of 
Omaha, is one. Whenever State law calls for an 8- or 10-member board, 
the Fields amendment would actually increase the number of tenants. 
That will be controversial for some States. For others, like my own, 
that has a five-member board, it is the same, one member one way, one 
member the other way. So there is a possibility of us working out this 
last sticking point.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, can 
the gentleman clarify for me why it would be more difficult with the 
eight-member board versus the five?
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, the Fields amendment in that case would 
provide for two members, and in the case of a smaller number of board 
members it would be only one. So there is the potential for a larger 
number of people who are tenants to be on the board under the Fields 
amendment than there is under existing language of the bill. I am not 
arguing the point. It is not relevant to my State. It is going to be 
controversial in some States. This is a matter that the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Fields] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] are 
going to have to work out.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I 
appreciate the gentleman from Nebraska's willingness to recognize the 
fact that tenant involvement in these cases is important. Twenty-five 
percent is twenty-five percent.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the 
bill says that a minimum of one member must be a tenant on a housing 
authority, but the Fields amendment says at least 25 percent. So, you 
see, potentially more members would be on some housing authorities who 
are tenants than would be under the bill, which specifies only one 
minimum. That is the difference.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that 
was the point. We wanted to have greater tenant involvement in the 
process. I understand maybe that is not an issue that the gentleman was 
arguing, but I think that all of us recognize that what we are trying 
to do here is make certain that we do not have some elected board or 
appointed board of individuals that has very little to do or very 
little understanding of the direct impact of their decision making 
process on the local housing authorities, and in fact try to find a way 
to create tenant involvement in the overall decisionmaking process.
  I think it is something that certainly the rhetoric that we are 
hearing surrounding this bill is completely compatible with, and I hope 
that we find a way of actually making certain that the people who are 
going to be most affected by these decisions are in fact involved in 
the decisions of the housing authority.
  Now, I wonder if I could inquire from my friend, the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Lazio], whether we are close to an agreement on this 
issue?

                              {time}  2000

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] has expired.

[[Page H4616]]

  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts was allowed to 
proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Lazio].
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
has a question with respect to where we are on the Fields amendment? I 
would suggest to the gentleman that we continue to have an ongoing 
problem.
  In the bill, we allow for the direct election of tenants onto boards. 
I have no objection if a local community wants to have 100 percent of 
the people on the board that are residents. What I do have an objection 
to is getting back to the model where again one size fits all and 
Washington knows best. We must use this much money for technical 
assistance. We must have a 25-percent quota of local residents.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts was allowed to 
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I think that we have a 
fundamental difference of opinion with respect to the amendment. I 
tried to meet the objection in terms of having the direct election of a 
resident to the board and in the manager's amendment that was adopted. 
Now I think the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] would like to go 
substantially further than that. I think there is a philosophical 
difference as to whether we should pursue that.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I 
wonder whether or not the gentleman can find some consistency in saying 
that the problem with the amendment is that it is a Washington-based 
solution, where in fact the solution simply says that we ought to have 
local involvement in the decision-making process? We are saying that 25 
percent of the people on the board ought to come from the local area. 
To try to identify that as a Washington-based solution is kind of 
bizarre.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, my concern here is not that we have local participation. As a 
matter of fact, we spend a page and a half in the manager's amendment 
speaking to the fact that the housing authorities should integrate into 
the community and have local participation. I believe deeply in it. My 
problem is setting quotas and saying every community should have this 
as opposed to----

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the 
gentleman from New York has a quota of one. The gentleman has a page 
and a half of rhetoric and he has one person. What we are trying to 
say, and what the gentleman from Louisiana is trying to say, is that we 
have 25 percent of the people, which is not anything close to the 
ability to carry the day on any vote, but that 25 percent of the people 
making the decision ought to have some direct impact and people that 
actually are living in these housing authorities ought to be involved 
in how those housing authorities are going to proceed.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue 
to yield, my problem, which I think is a philosophical divide, is 
whether we start to retreat back from allowing flexibility and 
fungibility for the housing authorities, giving them more rules, 
imposing on them a set quota.
  I do not care if a community decides that they have all residents, 
but that should be the local community's decision and not Washington's.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, 
that is the most inverted logic I have ever heard.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment of the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Fields]. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, this is family 
values. Imagine those of us who live in middle-class neighborhoods, we 
organize into block clubs, we organize into neighborhood organizations, 
because it is the local residents who have the knowledge about the 
community in which they reside to make determinations about their 
particular community.
  Mr. Chairman, I am of the opinion that failure of this amendment says 
to residents across this country that Washington knows better about the 
neighborhood and the development in which you reside better than you 
do, and what could be a more paternalistic view of the condition of 
people in public housing across our country than that?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] 
for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman if this 
business of one smacks of tokenism? It sounds familiar, that we will 
let one in, we will let one on, but we do not want too many if, in 
fact, we have more than one, they may being to have a collective voice 
and challenge some of the decisions.
  Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman thinks that the accusation of 
the gentleman from New York where he says somehow that the amendment of 
the gentleman from Louisiana that asks for 25 percent is any different 
than his asking for 1 percent, except that it is more involvement. 
Could the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson] expand on that a little 
bit?
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would 
like to make the argument that this is not about quotas in public 
housing. Residents have the right to participate in making decisions 
about where they live, and that is just a fact of life. I make 
decisions about the condominium that I live in here in Washington, DC. 
The gentlewoman from California certainly makes decisions as a member 
of a condominium or a cooperative in the neighborhood in which she 
lives.
  Mr. Chairman, why should not low income and poor Americans be able to 
make decisions about the complexes and the developments within which 
they live? Twenty-five percent, one out of four, three out of 12, four 
out of 16, is not an unreasonable number to ask for participation from 
residents to make some determination about the conditions under which 
they live.
  I might add, Mr. Chairman, the only real change that is actually 
occurring here is for the very first time the Federal Government is 
mandating that residents do participate in local housing authorities. 
Reality is those of us from middle-class neighborhoods have served in 
capacities for public housing authorities all across our country and, 
frankly, the residents have had no say.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
let me just say that I tried to make the point earlier that to the 
degree people are involved, they accept more responsibility. We have a 
lot of young people in public housing authorities that have no idea how 
these decisions get made.
  Let me give some examples. I can recall in the city of Los Angeles 
when they would let contracts out for people to come into the public 
housing authorities and do work. They would contract with folks who 
would come from all over the extended Los Angeles area to come in and 
put up screens and to dig and to do all of these things. The people who 
lived there simply would watch out of their windows while other people 
come in and make money, take the money, and go home and spend it in 
their communities.
  Mr. Chairman, we organized a little bit in some of these public 
housing authorities and asked the residents: What do you think the 
policy should be about creating job opportunities where you live? They 
said, ``Ms. Waters we want to work. We think that the public housing 
authorities should create job opportunities for those jobs that are 
being done where we live. Many of these jobs do not even require 
training. Some of them may. We want to be trained.''
  We organized and forced that kind of decision at the board to allow 
the residents to work in those public housing authorities where they 
live when the jobs become available. If there were contractors coming 
in, we developed a public policy where those contractors should have to 
hire some of the people there.
  Mr. Chairman, if they had been sitting on the board where these 
decisions were being made, they could have told them a long time ago. 
There are hundreds of decisions like that. We have people in local 
housing authorities who

[[Page H4617]]

believe there should be some commerce inside the public housing 
authorities, that they should be able to create some businesses so they 
can get off of welfare, so that they can work. We will not get that 
unless we get people working at the board where the decisions are made, 
giving input, and helping those who come from every place else. But the 
communities, they are making decisions about understanding how to run 
these places.
  I think in my city and in the city of the gentleman that we have seen 
a lot of what goes on, and we believe that we can go a long way toward 
solving some of the problems if we but listen to the people who live 
there.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] will be 
postponed.


         amendment no. 44 offered by mr. watt of north carolina

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina: Page 34, 
     line 9, after ``determines that the plan'' insert ``does not 
     comply with Federal law or''.

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes, 
because it is my understanding that the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Lazio], the subcommittee chair, has agreed to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we are simply trying to make it clear that when a local 
housing authority submits its housing plan, that the Secretary has the 
authority to review it in compliance with Federal law, as well as the 
underlying provisions of this bill.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of bipartisan 
cooperation and reasonableness, I would support the gentleman's 
amendment and urge its adoption. I believe this is consistent with the 
current law, and for that reason I support the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   amendment offered by mr. gilchrest

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gilchrest: On page 30, line 8, 
     insert the following: ``Furthermore, to assure the safety of 
     public housing residents, the requirements will include use 
     of trespass laws by the authority to keep evicted tenants or 
     criminals out of public housing property.''

  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to section 
107, to the section on the crime prevention plan that local housing and 
management authorities must have to be approved by the Secretary of 
HUD. The language in my amendment is needed to make sure that the local 
housing authorities can keep their properties safe and crime-free by 
invoking local criminal trespass laws. Without this amendment, local 
housing authorities risk lawsuits from disgruntled evicted criminal 
tenants, and the entire public housing community is put at risk.
  In my district, there is a situation where a Federal judge issued a 
consent decree as part of a settlement in a lawsuit of former tenants 
against a local public housing authority. Aided by Legal Aid and the 
ACLU, the former tenants obtained a settlement that states the housing 
authority cannot ban evicted tenants or other troublesome visitors from 
returning to the public housing unless required to do so by HUD. HUD 
has taken no action. Since 1993, the judge's decree and HUD's inaction 
leave the authority unable to assure a safe, secure community.
  Mr. Chairman, other housing authorities use notice of trespass with 
success in keeping evicted tenants and known drug criminals out of 
public housing, but because HUD is silent, St. Michael's Housing 
Authority in my district cannot use local trespass laws to provide a 
safe environment for all other law-abiding, lease-abiding tenants.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before us this evening brings historic reforms 
that will strengthen the management of local housing authorities and 
give public housing residents more incentives to take care of their 
communities. Does it not seem reasonable, then, that to carry out HUD's 
``one strike and your out policy,'' local housing and management 
authorities must use local trespass laws to keep out those evicted 
tenants who have struck out?
  The Federal judge's ruling in this settlement weakens the ability of 
St. Michael's Housing Authority to keep evicted tenants and other 
criminals out. I am told that other housing directors have used such 
notice and credit it with eliminating drug problems.
  The situation described is unfortunate and another example of why 
reforms of HUD's management of public housing are needed. By adopting 
this amendment we will make sure housing authorities have the tools 
they need to keep out evicted tenants.
  The intent of the public housing reforms is to help assure safe 
communities, and in keeping with this intent, HUD should require 
housing authorities to do their best to assure that those persons who 
are ineligible for public housing do not return to disrupt public 
housing communities. Let's finish the job by allowing authorities to 
keep out evicted tenants. I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, one example of what happens in this particular housing 
development as a result of this court ruling and this court decree, in 
order to get an evicted tenant evicted from the premises of this 
particular housing project, a tenant, not the housing manager or 
housing authority, a tenant must write a letter to the person that was 
evicted that is now trespassing.
  Can my colleagues imagine a 70-year-old woman writing a letter to 
someone that was evicted because of drug abuse that is now back on the 
property before any action is taken?
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge adoption of this amendment.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, the case of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] 
makes seems to make some sense. It is the first that any of us have 
seen this amendment. I do not know what kinds of legal problems or 
anything else that this might create, that the actual language he has 
written here might create, but we would be happy to work with the 
gentleman between now and the conference committee, if we pass this 
amendment this evening, to incorporate the gentleman's concerns.
  Mr. Chairman, everybody wants to make certain that we keep public 
housing safe and secure for residents. No one wants to have evicted 
tenants or criminals abusing existing tenants, and we will try to work 
with Members to make sure that the concerns of Members and their 
constituents are met.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of the amendment of the 
gentleman from Maryland. It is an amendment that is important in terms 
of the quality of life for people in public housing. It is a truism 
that people in public housing do not have the same protections as 
people in the rest of the marketplace. That is unfair.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Maryland seeks to impose or create 
an equity where people will not be able to harass residents in public 
housing. He illustrates that through the use of his local community. I 
am in support of that. I think it is the right thing to do. I urge its 
passage.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].

[[Page H4618]]

  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?


                   amendment offered by mrs. maloney

  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Maloney: Page 37, line 19, strike 
     ``A'' and insert ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in 
     subsections (b) and (c), a''.
       Page 37, line 25, strike ``Notwithstanding the preceding 
     sentence, pet'' and insert the following:
       (b) Federally Assisted Rental Housing for the Elderly or 
     Disabled.--Pet
       Page 38, after line 5, insert the following new subsection:
       (c) Elderly Families in Public and Assisted Housing.--
     Responsible ownership of common household pets shall not be 
     denied any elderly or disabled family who resides in a 
     dwelling unit in public housing or an assisted dwelling unit 
     (as such term is defined in section 371), subject to the 
     reasonable requirements of the local housing and management 
     authority or the owner of the assisted dwelling unit, as 
     applicable. This subsection shall not apply to units in 
     public housing or assisted dwelling units that are located in 
     federally assisted rental housing for the elderly or 
     handicapped referred to in subsection (b).

  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of myself and my friend and 
colleague, the gentlewoman from New York, Representative Susan 
Molinari, I am offering an amendment to the housing bill. As my 
colleagues know, Susan Molinari is at home right now, expecting the 
birth of her first child at any moment. Although I would have liked 
very much to have her join me tonight on the floor, I want to take this 
opportunity to offer my congratulations to Susan and Bill Paxon on, 
truly, life's greatest experience, that of becoming a parent, that of 
waiting to become a parent.
  That aside, the key issues of my amendment are very, very simple. 
Senior citizens and people with disabilities should not be forced to 
choose between their pets and their opportunities to affordable 
housing.
  Mr. Chairman, under current Federal law, senior citizens living in 
federally assisted senior designated housing have a right to own a pet. 
This 12-year-old policy has worked and it has worked very well.
  But tragically for most seniors, senior designated housing makes up 
only 10 percent of all the Federal housing. In many places, specially 
designated senior housing is not available due to long, long 
waiting lists. Seniors, therefore, who live in Federal housing are 
forced to give up their pets. Studies have shown again and again the 
physical and mental health benefits of pet ownership.

  When the original policy was passed in 1983, a number of public 
housing authorities expressed concern that pets would damage dwellings 
and harm other residents. According to HUD, these concerns have not 
been borne out. Furthermore, numerous studies have shown us that pets 
in public housing present little trouble and that the benefits of pet 
ownership far outweigh any pitfalls.
  Mr. Chairman, many studies back up the lack of problems. For example, 
a University of California study of the 1983 law reported that 84 
percent of local housing authorities who have dealt with the 1983 law 
allowing pets reported either positive effects or no noticeable 
changes.
  The Massachusetts Committee on Housing found that seniors proved 
themselves to be responsible pet owners in every way. Our amendment 
provides a simple way to dramatically improve the lives of millions of 
our growing senior community. Most studies have found that senior 
citizens and people with disabilities who have pets, live longer, go to 
the doctor less often, recover more quickly from illnesses, and have 
more positive outlooks than those who do not have pets.
  For older persons, isolated by widowhood or declining health, pets 
provide companionship.
  The National Institutes of Health concluded that pets are medically 
beneficial to people's health. The bond between people and their pets 
predates recorded history. My amendment ensures that we will not deny 
this incredible bond to hundreds of thousands of senior citizens.
  With 3.7 million Federal housing units still prohibiting seniors from 
keeping their pets, the need for this amendment is great. As people 
grow older, they often taste the loss of family and home. It is 
inhumane to take away someone's companion at a time when they need 
their unconditional love the most, when they face a fixed income and 
the need for public housing.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment removes the unfair distinction between 
seniors-only housing and other public housing in a responsible manner.
  The amendment allows the housing authorities to write effective, 
comprehensive regulations appropriate to their own dwellings, which 
ensure tenant and landlord compliance while maintaining decent, safe, 
and sanitary housing.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this amendment has a broad array of support 
from advocacy groups and Members. A coalition of groups who protect 
seniors rights have supported this amendment, like the American 
Association of Retired Persons and the Pets for the Elderly Foundation. 
Advocates for physical and mental health support this legislation, 
including the American Psychological Association, many other health 
groups. It is cosponsored by 130 of my colleagues from both sides of 
the aisle.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentlewoman from New York speaks with 
conviction and sincerity. I appreciate that. But we are talking about a 
situation where we can barely control the maintenance and the basic 
order in some developments in America. We are talking about a situation 
not where we have $300,000 condos but where gangs control some halls, 
where people are actually blocked from having entrance into their 
apartments because gangs control the halls, seal it off, and there is 
crack dealing sometimes under the stairwells.
  We already allow for pets in senior housing. What we are saying is 
that Washington should not decide this issue.
  Let me explain to you what it has already done. This is where the HUD 
pet police enter. The recent department, the department is talking 
about reinventing itself, just issued 20 pages of regulations about 
reinventing itself, just issued 20 pages of regulations on pets in 
public housing. This is what the new reinvented HUD does, issues regs 
that state the mandatory pet rules for public housing, including 
specific rules on when kitty litter boxes are put out, how often that 
is going to be changed. Is that exactly what we are talking about here? 
Is that what we think about when we talk about the mission of HUD 
providing for decent sanitary housing?
  When the dog runs down the hall, are we going to have the pet police 
try to identify who belongs to that dog, whether it is someone who is a 
senior in the building or whether it is a neighbor next door who is not 
allowed to have a dog? Are we going to have packs of dogs and animals 
running throughout the halls? Is that what we want? Is that what we are 
looking for. We are talking about providing safe, sanitary, healthy 
housing for Americans.
  We are talking about reclaiming our tradition of having decent 
housing as public housing. We are talking about identifying and 
acknowledging the fact that we have failed. We have situations where 
ceilings are falling down, elevators do not work, the stench of waste 
in hallways. And we are talking about introducing pets into public 
housing to compound the problem that managers have. This is exactly 
where we are headed over here.
  This defines two different visions of what we are doing over here. 
One vision is a vision that would say we ought to regulate how often 
people ought to put out the kitty litter boxes and how often they ought 
to be changed. Another vision would be that local communities ought to 
make those decisions, that they know best, that we do not get involved 
in these micromanagement decisions.
  We are living in a fantasy land, my colleagues, if we believe that 
every place in America, the public housing throughout America is the 
same as America in some of our communities.
  There are wide differences over here. There are huge challenges in 
terms of management. This issue, introducing

[[Page H4619]]

pets into public housing where we really do not regulate whether you 
have a pit bull, whether it is one, 5 or 10 pit bulls in a particular 
area, who belongs to those pit bulls. This is absolutely ludicrous.
  This is exactly the model that we want to move away from. We want to 
move toward a situation where we have community empowerment, local 
decisionmaking, move away from centralized bureaucrats deciding that 
this is going to be the case without an understanding of what the 
consequences are in our neighborhoods.
  We are trying to move away from neighborhoods of despair and 
impoverishment and failure toward communities of hope. We cannot 
complicate the mission of people who are trying to manage public 
housing and assisted housing by introducing this grave problem into the 
equation.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot forebear commenting on the pattern that we are 
hearing from the chairman. In the first place, he gives the same speech 
on every amendment. I would suspect that his familiarity with the 
specifics are not what they might be. He talks about one size fits all. 
We have one speech fits all.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York, 
unlike the gentleman who would not yield to me any of the times I asked 
him this evening.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to debate any 
particular section of this bill, if the gentleman wants to talk about 
the merits of it or the particulars. I know his comments. He often 
relishes being condescending and insulting. I appreciate that. But let 
me explain to the gentleman, I am fully prepared to discuss two 
different visions of where we think public housing and assisted housing 
needs to go in this country. If the gentleman wants to defend the 
failure of 40 years under his party's control, I am happy to engage the 
gentleman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the 
gentleman has illustrated it again. We get the same speech.
  I tried when the gentleman left the floor before, he talks about 40 
years of control. It was the Reagan budget, known as the Gramm-Latta 
bill, which amended the Brooke amendment in the way the gentleman 
objected to. The gentleman said that the Brooke amendment, which was a 
Republican proposal to limit the amount of rents that could be charged, 
became a job killer because it also became a floor. That was done under 
Gramm-Latta, under Ronald Reagan.
  I have asked the gentleman to explain to me how that is the fault of 
the Democrats. Would he explain to me, I will be glad to yield to him, 
how was the fact that the Reagan budget of 1981 turned the Brooke 
amendment from a tenant protection to a job killer the fault of the 
Democrats? I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from New York.

  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to that. For the 
last 10 years or 12 years----
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, excuse me. I know the gentleman was 
talking to somebody.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I want to tell you about the facts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman please 
abide by the rules?
  The last 10 years cannot be relevant to my question about 1981. We 
are talking about 1981. In 1981, under the Reagan domination of this 
House, Gramm-Latta amended the Brooke amendment to make it what the 
gentleman objected to. How was that the fault of the Democrats, when it 
was Gramm-Latta that did it in 1981?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, last time I recalled, 1981, the Democrats had a Democratic 
speaker up there. They controlled this House. This is the typical 
response of denial that there is any responsibility for all of the 
efforts that led to the position we are in right now.
  Since 1981, for the last 15 years, for 13 of the 15 years, the 
Democrats have had a majority in this House. They have known that the 
Brooke amendment has been a disincentive to work. They have done 
nothing about it. Just like one for one, Federal preferences----
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, I am only talking 
about the Brooke amendment now. I would make a couple of points. The 
gentleman from New York's argument that during 1981, when Gramm-Latta 
passed with Ronald Reagan's first year of the presidency, it was a 
Democrat, the Democrats controlling the agenda, illustrates how at 
variance he is with the facts.
  Second, we were talking about Republican control of the Senate for 
all of those periods when we could not get legislation through that was 
not agreed to by both.

                              {time}  2030

  We also had a Republican President whose signoff we had to have on 
the legislation. This is an example of the kind of distortion we are 
talking about, and again the notion, and, by the way, during this whole 
period when I got here in 1981, the Republicans controlled the Senate, 
the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Presidency from 1981 
through 1986, but according to the gentleman from New York they have no 
responsibility.
  But I also want to talk about the substantive pattern here, and the 
substantive pattern here is for all the talk about empowerment, let us 
give the housing authorities more control over the lives of the 
tenants.
  When the gentleman from Louisiana wanted to expand tenant rights, no, 
no, that is no good.
  The gentlewoman from New York and her colleague, the other 
gentlewoman from new York, want to protect tenants' rights regarding 
pet ownership; no, no, no, we cannot interfere with the authorities.
  Indeed the gentleman from new York says we are going to empower the 
tenants by letting the housing authorities raise their rents without 
limit. That is the gentleman from New York's answer about empowerment 
because in fact what he said was, and this one I am still trying to 
understand and I will yield to him to explain this to me; the gentleman 
said that if we put a 30 percent cap on what tenants can be charged, 
that would be bad for the tenants who were working because then the 
authority would go up to the 30 percent, and the way to prevent the 
authority from going up to a 30 percent cap is to say with those very 
same tenants there is no cap at all.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts was allowed to 
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the 
gentleman in 10 seconds to explain to me how limiting the authorities 
to 30 percent of what they can charge working people, which is what my 
amendment would do, is a better protection for those working people in 
the housing authority than giving the housing authority the right to 
charge them unlimited rents because that is the only difference between 
us.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman still thinks in 
the box. The gentleman still thinks that rent can only be charged as a 
percentage of income. What I am suggesting is that public housing 
authorities ought to be in power to set place-based rents or to say 
that a particular unit should rent for $15, or $25 a month so that if 
somebody goes to work, begins to earn more money, they do not have this 
disincentive.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am reclaiming my time 
because the gentleman simply refuses to answer a plain English 
question.
  No, there is no disincentive, and I would ask the gentleman please to 
abide by the rules. The point is he does not want to answer the 
question. I did not ask him the question he answered.
  I am not mandating any increase. He talks about a disincentive. The 
disincentive came from Reagan, Gramm, and Latta. What we are doing is 
to say, no, there is no floor, they can charge less if they want to. We 
are saying not that rents have to be percentage based, but that 30 
percent is the limit. They

[[Page H4620]]

can use whatever formula and rules they want, but they cannot go above 
30 percent.
  And the gentleman is going to protect tenants by not letting them 
have pets, he would protect tenants by not having more of them on the 
authority, and he will protect tenants in the most bizarre logic of all 
by allowing the housing authorities to raise the rents without limit. 
We are not talking about mandating 30 percent as the basis. We are 
saying whatever basis they have, it cannot for working people go above 
30 percent.
  The gentleman's amendment says welfare recipients cannot go above 30 
percent, but working people, there is no limit.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I wonder if the gentleman would agree to a 
compromise when we apply Brooke to the pet amendment so 30 percent of 
the people could have pets?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would expect more in the 
gentleman's logic that we would propose that people could keep 30 
percent of their pets; that would be more in line with the kind of 
thinking the gentleman has had.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  I am glad we can get back to the Ace Ventura amendment here.
  The truth is that if we get back to what the purposes of the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney], it 
is in fact, and states quite clearly, that this provides the local 
housing authority with the capability of deciding on their own whether 
or not the pets ought to be allowed. To try to suggest that this is 
something that is going to Washington for decision making is a bizarre 
twist of what Mrs. Maloney's amendment says. Mrs. Maloney's amendment 
allows this decision to be made locally, and that is what we are trying 
to do here.
  As my colleagues know, every time somebody stands up and makes an 
amendment, we have an amendment to say 25 percent of the decisions here 
ought to be made by people within the 25 percent of the people on the 
board ought to come from local housing authority. Oh, no that is 
Washington-based. The gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] offers 
an amendment that allows the decision to be made by the local housing 
authority and, oh, no, that is a Washington-based decision, and someone 
or another we are getting packs of pit bulls in these housing 
authorities as a result of having elderly people allowed to be able to 
have pets.
  I just do not understand where the chairman is coming from when we 
are trying to simply allow what is already currently allowed in many, 
many housing authorities throughout the country.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. The gentleman correctly states the intent of 
the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] that local housing 
authorities will be able to determine whether pets will be allowed. I 
find that perfectly acceptable. That is exactly what I am arguing for, 
local control.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, the bill allows local housing authorities 
to come forward with the rules and regulations. The one thing that they 
cannot do is say absolutely under no circumstances can a senior citizen 
or a disabled person have a fine, quiet pet.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, therein lies the problem. I 
agree. Local control allows the locals to decide whether pets should be 
allowed or not, depending on their particular circumstance, but we are 
not suggesting this in this amendment. We are suggesting in this 
amendment they must do it.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY. Currently, as my dear friend from New York knows, the 
Federal law allows seniors to have pets in federally designated senior 
housing and housing for the disabled. This merely extends that right to 
seniors and the disabled in regular housing projects, and allows local 
housing authorities to come forward with their own rules and 
commonsense regulations.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, I would ask the 
chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services if, given 
the fact that he is now stating, as I understand, that he is not 
opposed to letting local housing authorities have the decision about 
whether or not pets should be allowed, and recognizing that the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] in 
fact provided that decision to be made in conjunction with the local 
housing authority, the local housing authority would have to establish 
the rules and regulations by which pets would be allowed within any 
housing project. I would think that we are close enough that if we 
huddle together for a few minutes, we might be able to work out some 
language that would allow the option to be utilized at the local level 
to enable people to have pets if they want them.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, completely protective in our 
bill in preserving the right of seniors to have pets in senior-only 
housing, I am also supportive and always have been supportive of 
allowing local housing authorities to determine, based on their own 
particular local circumstances, whether it makes sense to have pets in 
mixed populations where seniors may want pets. I have no problem with 
that.
  I would be glad to try and work that out as long as we understand 
that it is my principle and my intent to retain local control on the 
decisionmaking.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Who does the gentleman not want to have 
pets?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. If the gentleman from Massachusetts will yield 
back, I do not want to make that decision at all. I want the local 
community to make that decision.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that that is 
all the intent of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New 
York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. If the gentleman would yield, Mr. Chairman, 
that is the gentlewoman's intent and she is willing to make the 
corrections. I would be happy to work with her. But the bill as 
currently constituted would suggest that every housing authority----
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Hang on.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. 
Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, it would require every housing authority 
to allow pets for seniors and the disabled in all Federal housing, not 
just senior-designated, but it also allows the local housing authority 
to come forward with their own commonsense rules and regulations.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts was allowed to 
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Let us see if we can work it out.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Legislating on the floor.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I say to the gentleman the problem is that you 
will have a situation in some areas where one person in a particular 
public housing hall will be allowed to have a pet. The person next door 
will not be allowed to have a pet. We want to make sure that public 
housing authorities have the discretion.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time. Mr. Chairman, I do 
not think that the gentleman's faith in

[[Page H4621]]

the local housing authority's wisdom of suggesting that Mrs. 
McGillicuddy is going to be able to have a dog, but Ms. Smith is not 
going to be able to have a dog is a lot less than my faith in the local 
housing authority.
  Why do we not just leave this, give the right to have the dog to the 
homeowners and allow the terms and conditions under what? The cat 
maybe, if that is better. That will allow the dogs and the cats to be 
decided, the rules and regulations, by the local housing authority.
  What is wrong with that?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. If the gentleman would yield, the difference 
between our perspectives is that I would allow a local housing 
authority that knows its neighborhoods and knows its building to make 
that decision, and I think the gentlewoman's perspective is that 
Washington knows best and that it knows what is best for every 
community in the entire country.
  If the gentlewoman is interested in working out, if the gentleman is 
interested in working out a discretionary situation in terms of the 
housing authorities, I am interested in pursuing that. But if the 
gentleman or gentlewoman feels very strongly about the fact that this 
must be a mandate, then we have a difference in opinion.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I do not think anybody is 
suggesting, reclaiming my time, I do not think anybody suggesting a 
mandate, but it is probably the first time that I have ever heard of a 
Congressman running against cats and dogs.
  But I say to the gentleman, go right ahead and do that territory, Mr. 
Chairman, and you know I would urge, if we cannot find a way to work 
this out, I urge us to go ahead and have a vote.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts was allowed to proceed for 1 additional 
minute.)
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to know if the 
gentleman from Long Island could maybe answer this. I keep hearing that 
it is up to the local housing authority. I had thought I heard that 
there was an amendment that said that every housing authority would be 
required to administer this personal improvement plan.
  Is that optional with the local housing authorities, the personal 
improvement plan whereby every tenant, every working tenant, has to do 
that?
  I would ask the gentleman if he would yield to the gentleman from 
Long Island.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] if he would yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio]?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Lazio].
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. No, no, that is not optional, because that is 
a matter of trying to transition people back into the work force.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. So, in other words, Washington knows best 
on that, and that is the one size fits all. That is a fair point that 
ought to be made explicit.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. One vision is that we should be worried about 
how many more animals would be allowed in public housing halls, and 
another vision is, which is my vision, is how do we----
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. That is not the argument. The gentleman 
shifts from substance to this, ``Oh, no, it is not up to us.'' It is up 
to us. I think I understand the principle. It is up to us when we want 
it to be up to us and it is not up to us when we do not want it to be.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, I have been taking a look at 
this amendment and I was wondering, the gentlewoman who is offering the 
amendment, I do not want to be accused of being against dogs and cats 
and pets. Being opposed to liberals is enough.
  But let me ask my colleagues this:
  Is pet defined in this amendment?
  The gentlewoman said if it is a quiet pet.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROTH. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment only allows common household 
pets. It does not include exotic animals, reptiles or dangerous or 
menacing animals, but common household pets.
  Mr. ROTH. How about a pit bull that does not bite?
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, it would depend on the regulations of the 
housing authority. Most housing authorities remove dogs, if I may 
explain the definition.
  Mr. ROTH. How about snakes? Now, snakes do not make a lot of noise, 
and in Florida many people have snakes.
  How about alligators? Alligators do not make a lot of noise, but some 
people in Florida have little pet alligators.
  This amendment is absolutely ridiculous. This is an idiotic 
amendment. I have never seen anything as crazy as this.
  As my colleagues know, I opened this file today on this amendment, 
and what pops out is the regulations from HUD.
  Now we are paying billions of dollars as taxpayers. That is why 
American people are opposed to what is going on in Washington.
  They have got 20 pages on cat litter. Think about it.
  Look at this. I just want to read one sentence to my colleague:

       In the case of cats and other pets using litter boxes the 
     pet rules may require the pet owner to change the litter but 
     not more than twice each week, may require pet owners to 
     separate pet waste from litter but not more than once a day, 
     and may prescribe methods for the disposal of pet waste and 
     used litter.

  Twenty pages, and we are paying bureaucrats to draft this stuff?

                              {time}  2045

  At quarter to 9 at night we are debating whether you can have a pit 
bull in your apartment, come on; or whether a snake makes noise? And we 
do not know whether we can have an alligator as a pet?
  Mr. Chairman, let us vote this turkey down.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we all come from different districts. We all represent 
different kinds of folks. But in my district, which is primarily a 
rural, working-class district in which there is a limited amount of 
public housing, the very idea that anyone, particularly a senior 
citizen, would have to dispose of a beloved dog or a cat in order to 
live in the center would be looked upon with total disbelief. It lacks 
compassion, it lacks sensitivity, it lack everything that I think we 
believe in.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WILSON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the 
gentleman, and I appreciate him yielding, that in fact seniors who 
would like to have pets have many different vehicles if they need 
assisted housing. They can use vouchers, they can use certificates, 
they can go into all senior housing that allows pets. Getting into a 
situation where some parts of the population in a particular housing 
development can have pets and some cannot, in a particularly distressed 
environment, makes no sense to me.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. WILSON. But, of course, the chairman of the committee knows that 
they represent only 10 percent of the housing, and that there is a 
waiting list of those people. The matter of fact is, and we would not 
be discussing this in the first place, but the matter of fact is that 
it is going to force people to dispose of pets. That is just absolutely 
crazy.
  In east Texas, to tell somebody that because they are forced into 
public housing that they are going to have to get rid of their puppy, 
is just nuts.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WILSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, in fact, the 1983 law still does not 
cover

[[Page H4622]]

about 90 percent of all Federal housing, or 3.7 million units. This is 
an issue of fairness. My amendment today would give those seniors and 
disabled living in non-senior or disabled-designated federally assisted 
housing the right to own pets.
  As my colleague said, I received a letter from one of my constituents 
who has had a pet for 12 years. She moved into public housing. They are 
telling her that she must get rid of her pet. They sent information on 
how the pet could be euthanized. She is desperate.
  Mr. WILSON. Reclaiming the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman, I have 
many friends on the minority side and I have many friends on the 
majority side. To my friends on the majority side, particularly those 
that are from rural districts, and especially those that are from rural 
southern districts, I would advise extreme caution on this vote.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say first of all to my colleague, the gentleman 
from Texas, there is nothing in the bill that relates to pets. The bill 
is silent on the subject of pets. The debate here has been about 
whether or not we require housing authorities to accept pets. I think 
we have heard the expression of the chairman of the committee. He is 
quite willing to leave that authority to the housing authorities 
themselves, whether or not an under what conditions they want to have 
pets.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I just want to emphasize again 
that we are preserving current law, so people who have pets, seniors 
who have pets now in public housing and in all senior developments, 
will be allowed to keep their pets. Nobody is saying to anybody that 
they have to dispose of their pets if they are already in public 
housing. What we are saying is that by extending this into a 
development where some people can have pets in a particular building, 
but some people cannot, is going to create enormous tension. It creates 
a huge mandate on public housing authorities who are worrying 
desperately about how to transition people back to work, how to keep 
families together, how to take care of the basic elements of quality of 
life without introducing or compounding the problems for housing 
authorities in terms of the management of those particular buildings 
that are under strees.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York. This amendment ensures that any elderly or 
disabled person in federally assisted housing, even federally assisted 
housing that is not specifically senior citizen housing, can have a 
pet. This is important for all the obvious reasons, which I will not 
repeat; but in addition we know, based upon scientific research, that 
older people with pets live longer, go to the doctor less often, and 
recover more quickly from illnesses. The lives of elderly and disabled 
persons, people in New York City and in the rest of the country, would 
be dramatically improved by this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of nonsensical arguments tonight on 
this amendment. Let me address a few of them. We have heard, What about 
snakes, what about reptiles? This amendment refers to common household 
pets. It allows almost complete regulation by the local housing 
authority, other than saying, ``not under any circumstances.''
  We have heard, Mr. Chairman, the particularly hypocritical argument 
about Washington knows best. Let me particularly address the chairman 
of the subcommittee on this point.
  Let me particularly address the chairman of the subcommittee on this 
point, because he got up a few minutes ago and said that this amendment 
says Washington knows best. Let me say, yes, it does. We all say 
Washington knows best sometimes. We passed an amendment on this floor 
yesterday with four dissenting votes, a bill, four dissenting votes, 42 
to 4, that said that every State must amend its law to provide for 
community notification when a sexual criminal is released from prison. 
Must. We did not give them a choice. We said they must. Thirty-five 
States must change their laws or else they will lose Federal aid, 
because we thought we knew best. I voted for it. Every Member sitting 
in this Chamber here voted for it, because most of us thought in that 
instance Washington knew best.
  Mr. Chairman, an amendment on the floor a few hours ago to this bill 
itself says that we are going to say we are going to force the housing 
authorities to institute these personal improvement plans to have 
working people, whose only fault is that they do not earn enough money 
because we will not raise the minimum wage, and because of economic 
forces beyond their control they have to have personal improvement 
plans. If the New York City Housing Authority thinks this is nuts, that 
is too bad, they had better do it or they will lose their Federal aid, 
because Members on that side of the aisle think Washington knows best 
in that instance.
  Mr. Chairman, to give one other example, we passed a welfare reform 
bill that says States must institute time limits, States must do 
various things or they will lose their Federal aid. I am not going to 
debate the wisdom of those things. The point is this House determined 
by majority vote that Washington knows best in that instance, too. The 
only difference between many of us, among many of us on the floor, is 
that some of us are honest enough to say that we will judge, that is 
our job as Members of this House, we will judge when and under what 
circumstances we think that Washington knows best, and when and under 
what circumstances we think it is more appropriate to leave a question 
to local control. The question here is, is this appropriate to leave to 
local control, or is this appropriate, as the gentleman on that side of 
the aisle thought it appropriate, to mandate personal improvement plans 
to say Washington knows best in this instance? What are we saying that 
Washington knows best about, what policy judgment? It is our job to 
make policy judgments.

  We are saying that Washington knows best that senior citizens, 
disabled people, are entitled to have common household pets if they 
want to. If the local housing authority wants to limit that in various 
ways, wants to regulate that in any way they want, it is a local 
decision. We will make the one policy that they cannot say ``not under 
any circumstances.'' We have made that policy decision, by the way, in 
the law, if they live within senior citizen and disabled household 
projects. Now we are going to make it for other assisted projects.
  What are we afraid of? I heard some rhetoric on that side of the 
aisle before, that we have crime in the projects committed by the 
senior citizens and the disabled or their pets, that we have gangs 
running through the projects. Not the pets of senior citizens, they are 
not the gangs. They are not committing murder and mayhem. I doubt that. 
Who are we afraid of? Who are we protecting? The fact is, the rhetoric 
about local control is just that: rhetoric. We all believe in local 
control under some circumstances. We all believe Washington ought to 
dictate policy in some circumstances. We disagree when. We disagree 
when it is appropriate. That is fine.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Nadler was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, let us not hear as an argument that 
Washington should not try to dictate to the local governments; because 
sometimes we do in this very bill. Sometimes we do not. The question 
is, is it appropriate, and why is it appropriate or not appropriate?
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add to my 
colleague's statement that this is a very bipartisan effort. The lead 
sponsor is the gentlewoman from New York, Susan Molinari. We have 57 
Republican cosponsors, and 63 Democrats cosponsors. It has been very 
much a bipartisan effort.

[[Page H4623]]

  Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see that 
the sentiment that sometimes we ought to make decisions here and not 
leave everything to local government is more or less equally shared on 
both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], 
chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York just 
said we judge. We judge, we make the judgments, but we do not live with 
the consequences of those judgments. We can send out a press release 
and think we have done something very important. We can take care of a 
political constituency. But who is watching out for the people in 
public housing? Obviously, nobody, for the people living in 200,000 
units that are supervised by some of the most dysfunctional corrupt 
housing authorities in America.
  For 17 years people have tolerated the failure, have tolerated the 
fact that these buildings are poorly maintained, they are infested in 
many cases with drugs and crime. Who cares about them? We are debating 
pets right now. I want to ask, where were some of these voices in 
outrage when people were trapped in poverty, when families could not 
transition back to the marketplace, where halls are sealed off so drug 
dealers can make their deals in the hallways, and people cannot move 
through?
  Mr. Chairman, we are talking about putting pets back in the hands of 
people where we have mixed populations. We expect people to supervise 
them, housing authorities. Which housing authority is it that we 
believe will be able to correctly supervise this with the problems they 
already have on their hands? Maybe it is New Orleans, who is scoring 27 
out of a possible score of 100, or the District of Columbia, that 
scores 33 out of a possible 100, or maybe Chicago, 44, or Pittsburgh, 
47: failing scores, all troubled since the inception of this back in 
1979.
  Do we care about helping those people already in there? Do we care 
about creating an environment where people can transition back to the 
marketplace, or do we care about the next press release and a 
particular constituency, taking care of a particular association for 
more votes, so we can introduce more pets in what is already a 
troubled, difficult environment?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EHRLICH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that the gentleman from Long 
Island eloquently denounced several housing authorities, and I agree, 
but he is the one who says leave this to the housing authority. How in 
the name of a policy which says let us leave it all in the hands of the 
local housing authority does he decide that the way to argue for it is 
to denounce local housing authorities?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, I will explain to the gentleman exactly how that will happen. 
The housing authorities that are chronically on this list of troubled 
housing authorities, under this bill we would say, no more. We are not 
going to tolerate failure anymore. We are not going to continue to 
spend Federal dollars and condemn Americans living in public and 
assisted housing that is disgraceful to live under those conditions, 
because we are too complacent and/or it alienates our political 
constituency.
  We say we are not going to penalize those communities, we are going 
to get the money to those communities, but we are going to bypass these 
dysfunctional, mismanaged, corrupt housing authorities and give the 
money to the people in the communities that are really making a 
difference: the community development corporations, the not-for-
profits, the resident management groups, the people with firsthand 
experience who are innovating, who are doing a good job. We are not 
going to keep giving money to these corrupt housing authorities. That 
is the difference with this bill on the floor and what has been done 
over the last 30 years of tolerance of failure. We are going to expect 
excellence and demand excellence.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. Chairman, I would like to put a face on what has been a very 
charged debate, and I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
her wisdom, and the collective body of members of the committee for 
seeing the wisdom in recognizing the value of giving human dignity to 
seniors and the disabled.
  There are good housing authorities and there are bad housing 
authorities. In Houston we have a housing authority that has promoted 
activities for youth, training, allowed residents to participate in 
certain instance.
  On the other hand, we cannot say that all decisions of housing 
authorities across this Nation are the right decisions. They do not sit 
as some royal decisionmaker that cannot be challenged.
  The face I would like to put on this amendment is that of Eileen 
Hobbs in the Allen Parkway Village. I visited Miss Hobbs just about a 
week or so ago, living in conditions that would warrant improvement, 
homebound and in a wheelchair, with two dogs, her friends, her doggies, 
if you would call it, her companions, and yet intimidated that she 
might not be able to keep these long-lasting friends who she said have 
kept her alive, pure and simple, because there would be those in the 
housing authority who would determine that she might not be able to 
keep these long-time companions.
  Someone who lives their life alone and yet has the opportunity to 
interact with the kind of companion that an animal may give them, that 
some of us may not understand. Why should we make those who live in 
public housing second-class citizens?
  It clearly shows that when we have an opportunity for someone like a 
Miss Hobbs to have enhanced life, we should not give her a second-class 
status from seniors who live elsewhere, from those of us who have as 
many cats and dogs as we might desire. It is well known that pet 
ownership gives a psychological boost and is beneficial to seniors and 
the disabled.
  I can only share with you, Mr. Chairman, this actual face of Eileen 
Hobbs, the fear, the apprehension, and the devastation of losing her 
companions.
  This is a fair bill. This allows the participation of the housing 
authority, but it recognizes the value and importance of what has to be 
emphasized for those who live in a housing authority. They have rights, 
too, and those rights are to have a companion, and we should not take 
this jokingly. This is a serious issue, and I rise to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words, and I rise in favor of the amendment.
  I have been listening to the debate in my office on C-SPAN, and I was 
not going to speak, but I am a cosponsor of the amendment. I am a 
Republican. I consider myself to be a conservative.
  I had a grandmother who lived in public housing. She passed away 
several years ago at the age of 95. There were four units in her 
housing complex in a small town in central Texas. I do not know if it 
was a local regulation or a Federal regulation, but she was not allowed 
to have a pet. I think she should have been allowed to.
  The gentlewoman from New York Susan Molinari, is the chief sponsor on 
this amendment with the gentlewoman who has been debating it on the 
floor on the Democratic side, and I hope that we do pass it.
  I want our colleagues to know that this is a bipartisan issue. It 
crosses party lines, and at least one person on this side who is in 
favor of it is going to vote for it and speak for it. Hopefully we will 
allow those senior citizens who want to have pets to let the local 
housing authority allow them to have pets.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to associate myself with 
the gentleman's remarks. The gentleman and I represent districts that 
are very much alike. We both know how important it is to people in 
public housing

[[Page H4624]]

projects in Crockett and in Normangee and Lufkin and in Toyahvale and 
in Huntington. I just want to compliment the gentleman on his remarks 
and his judgment.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I want 
to be in favor of it.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have one simple question to ask the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, if he is here. The question 
I have is the following:
  The gentleman spoke eloquently a few minutes ago about dysfunctional 
housing authorities that are not fulfilling their functions, wasting 
money, hurting people, et cetera. You are going to bypass those housing 
authorities in this bill and you are going to give money directly 
through tenant vouchers, et cetera. My question is simply this. In 
terms of this amendment, where you say you want to let local housing 
authorities make this decision and we should not mandate the decision, 
we are going to bypass these housing authorities because they are 
incompetent, who will make the decision as to whether we should allow 
senior citizens and disabled people to have pets, the nonexistent local 
housing authorities or the dysfunctional housing authorities?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. The dysfunctional housing authorities would 
effectually be defunded under the plan that we have before us. Those 
that are highly functioning will be given the flexibility that they all 
request and all deserve.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we have heard that before. I am asking a 
question you are not answering. In those districts where you are 
defunding the local housing authority, where there are bad and 
dysfunctional and horrible housing authorities, if a senior citizen, a 
disabled person in a housing project in that area wants to have a pet, 
who will make that decision whether it is okay or not?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue 
to yield, the way this bill operated, which is not the way it has 
operated, gave discretion to the housing authority. The individual 
vendor that controlled the management of the units would make the call, 
if they were operating successfully, in conjunction with an evaluation 
effectively by HUD.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Illinois will yield, 
I thought the gentleman from New York just said there was no 
functioning housing authority there, in which case, who would make the 
decision?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. If the gentleman will yield further, if the 
housing authority, as is the case for many housing authorities, is 
chronically dysfunctional, ends up getting defunded, what happens is 
HUD is required to bid out the work that is done by this chronically 
dysfunctional housing authority, allow management groups, resident 
management groups, and not-for-profits or for-profits to do the work 
the housing authorities were previously supposed to be doing but were 
not doing.
  Mr. NADLER. So in other words, in those areas where there are 
dysfunctional or incompetent housing authorities, no public agency 
would make the decision. It would be left up to some private agency. 
There would not be any public policy body in either the local housing 
authority, which you have defunded, nor the Congress nor HUD.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, that is not a decision that will 
be made here in Congress. It will be a decision made on various 
applications.
  Mr. NADLER. Made by whom?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. HUD will decide who is exactly awarded 
contracts to do the work that the housing authority was supposed to do, 
or the not-for-profit or for-profit.

  Mr. NADLER. The decision will be made here in Washington by HUD?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. No. If the gentleman from Illinois will yield 
again, the decision ultimately, under what I am suggesting, will be 
made by the local housing authority itself or the successor to the 
housing authority, as opposed to mandating it.
  Mr. NADLER. As I understand what the gentleman is saying, if you have 
a functional housing authority, they will make the decision. But with 
respect to my question where you do not have a functioning housing 
authority, HUD will decide on who is actually going to manage it and 
that private agency will make the decision.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. If the gentleman would yield, once again it 
does not have to be private. It could be a not-for-profit, it could be 
a management resident group, it could be a public entity. It cannot be 
the same mismanaged, dysfunctional housing authority. They are not 
going to get the money anymore.
  Mr. NADLER. It would not be the dysfunctional housing authority but 
we would not make the decision.
  Let me simply submit that this whole dialogue or colloquy is a good 
argument why in this instance on the basic policy question, not the 
details which we can leave to the locals but on the basic policy that 
senior citizens and disabled people should not be denied pets in public 
housing, that we are entitled and we should utilize this opportunity to 
make this decision by adopting the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been listening with great curiosity, intensity 
to this debate. We are saying that we are passing this bill and we are 
bringing this legislation in order to give control to the local housing 
authorities and to get Washington out of the business of public 
housing. That has been the argument time and time again. But those are 
the very people that we say we have to take control away from because 
they are so corrupt and inept in providing the services, but we are 
going to give them more power so they can correct the corruptness and 
ineptness of everything that they do.
  Then they say, well, if they do not start behaving and they do not 
start providing quality, affordable housing, then what we are going to 
do is we are going to bring in Washington, DC. We are going to bring in 
HUD to take them over. I thought we were getting out of the business of 
managing the local housing authorities and giving them more control, 
but if they do not abide by whatever standards or rules that we are 
going to impose upon them, then of course HUD takes over.
  The last time I checked, HUD was a Federal agency, unless my friends 
on the other side of the aisle have eliminated it.
  So HUD then comes and takes over. But then we are expected to 
believe, if we listen to the chairman, that what is going to happen is 
that HUD, the Federal Government, who we want to get out of the 
business, is going to go in there and correct the problem. Because HUD 
has then got to go in there and correct the problem and make sure that 
they can find people to provide the services that the local housing 
authority was not able to provide, if they do not abide by the rules.
  I do now know whether we are in the business or trying to get out of 
the business or we are back in the business again. But it seems to me 
that we have to stop using this idiotic kind of argument that what we 
are doing here is empowering local governments and localities, because 
if that was the truth, and I just brought down because I think that 
this is very interesting, section (b), page 9, the tenant self-
sufficiency contract:

       Except as provided in subsection (c), each local housing 
     and management authority shall require, as a condition of 
     occupancy of a public housing dwelling unit by a family and 
     of providing. . . . The terms of a self-sufficiency contract 
     under this subsection shall be established pursuant to 
     consultation between the authority and the family.

  Now we are going to get the public housing authority to sit down with 
each and every family, and be their social worker and sit down with 
them, but we are not going to provide day care. And if they say, ``You 
know, if I only had a raise in the minimum wage, I might be able to do 
better and reach self-sufficiency,'' we are not going to do anything 
about that.
  Then it says kinds of, well, if they have a problem related to 
education,

[[Page H4625]]

we are going to reduce how much money we send to the people can get an 
education, college loans and deduction, but we want them to receive a 
self-sufficiency contract.
  Then it says substance abuse and alcohol abuse, job training and 
skills training. They have to get job training, but we are going to 
reduce the amount of money that the House of Representatives is going 
to send for job training and skills training.
  I do not know how it is we expect them to keep this contract if at 
the same time the House of Representatives is going to diminish the 
funding for each and every one of these categories.
  But the one thing we will be able to do, we will allow the local 
housing authorities one power: That is to say to them, ``We are going 
to give you less money, we are going to give you fewer resources to 
deal with the issues,'' but we are going to give the local housing 
authorities the ability to raise the rent for everyone of these 
tenants.

                              {time}  2115

  We are going to be able to allow those housing authorities to change 
the venue of people. I think that this bill is clear to anybody who 
really examines it and looks at it. It is not about local housing 
authorities and empowering local housing authorities. It is about 
washing our hands, as Pontius Pilate did, of the poor and the destitute 
and those that have no hope in America, saying that this Congress is 
going to turn its back on them also. Because I just cannot understand 
how on the one hand we want to get out of people's lives, this is a 
Congress that says let us get out of people's personal lives. Congress 
and the Federal Government is involved in people's personal lives.
  We want less government, we want less intrusion in the day-to-day 
affairs. But then they are going to tell every local housing authority, 
set up a contract on substance abuse, education, tell me when you are 
graduating from high school, how you are going to get there and when 
you are going to get there, but do not expect us to help you. Just tell 
us how you are going to get there, and I want you to sign this 
contract. If you do not sign it, you are out.
  I thought we were about less government, less intrusion in people's 
lives. But it seems to me we are about more intrusion, when we want to 
destroy an institution. But it does not surprise me very much, because 
as I look at the status of the House GOP Contract With America, given 
where that contract is at today, I do not expect this will have much 
success either.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I had been out at a meeting for the last hour or so, 
and came back into my office, and the TV was running, and the sound had 
been turned down, the staff was doing some work. As I watched the 
debate in which we apparently are still engaged, I looked at it and I 
saw the passion that seemed to be apparent on the faces of the folks on 
the other side of the aisle and the gesturing, and so forth, and I 
thought, well, let me turn the sound up, they are probably talking 
about something for which passion is required and for which important 
issues and important principles are at stake, such as those with which 
I was somewhat familiar as a U.S. attorney in prosecuting cases 
involving public housing units, matters such as drug trafficking, 
matters such as drive-by shootings, matters such as child abuse, 
matters that really do require our attention, because they affect the 
lives of the people in those homes, in those projects.
  But yet when I reached over and turned the volume up on the TV, I 
hear that they are not talking about drug trafficking, murder, child 
abuse, fraud, or something important. We are talking about pets. Pets.
  I would respectfully urge my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle who continually chide us when we want to bring up a piece of 
substantive legislation with cries of ``Oh, there are more important 
issues. Why are you bringing up this issue that we believe is not so 
important,'' I would urge them respectfully to get a life. Let us focus 
on the true issues that are important to the people whose lives are at 
stake, whose lives are being snuffed out by crime, by drug trafficking, 
by drive-by shootings, by child abuse in these projects, and let us 
move on.
  I think, I truly do think, that the American people believe there are 
matters slightly more weighty to be consuming hours of the time of the 
Congress of the United States than pets.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I really do not understand why the gentleman on the 
other side of the aisle will not accept the gentlewoman's amendment to 
allow an elderly woman to have a pet in a home. Just because a person 
living in public housing, for crying out loud, does not mean they ought 
not have the quality of life of everybody else. Even the President of 
the United States of America has a pet in his home.
  But I want to yield to the gentleman, I would like to if the 
gentleman would respond, and that is on public housing, I loud like to 
yield to the gentleman from New York, because I have a particular 
problem about some of the things even in the manager's amendment, 
because reading the manager's amendment, for example, the gentleman's 
amendment from New York, it says, ``A tenant who is elected to the 
housing authority or to that housing board, cannot serve as a 
representative of the board if he or she was convicted of a misdemeanor 
in a 5-year period.''
  I am trying to find out what is the rationale of telling a person who 
lives in public housing, for crying out loud, they cannot serve on a 
board if they were convicted of a traffic ticket? If they were 
convicted of a parking ticket? If they go a ticket for jaywalking?
  The gentleman continues to talk about how he wants to give the people 
in this country the opportunity to participate in their decisions and 
take it away from Washington and take it away from all these 
bureaucracies across America, but yet he tells the poor citizens who 
lives in a public housing facility that he or she cannot serve if they 
have been convicted of a misdemeanor. Not a felony, but a misdemeanor, 
for the past 5 years.
  I would like to yield to the gentleman because I would like to know 
why the gentleman would put such strict requirements on members elected 
to the board who serve in housing facilities.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, let me say, first of all, with 
respect to the gentleman's initial comment, what I am advocating is 
that those people who seek public housing live in the same world that 
people who go out there and look for an apartment to live in, which is 
to say if you go look for an apartment and you are lucky enough----
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the last 
time I checked, there is nothing wrong with a person looking for an 
apartment and filing out an application who has been convicted of a 
parking violation. I do not understand the rationale. I can understand 
felonies, but I do not understand the rationale of a misdemeanor.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about two 
different things. I am trying to address the initial request about 
pets.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Why is it so difficult for a person to serve 
on a board if they have been convicted of a misdemeanor?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. If the gentleman will yield, our position is 
that we are trying to provide professional management in very troubled 
situations. We are trying to eliminate people who are convicted 
criminals from a fiduciary relationship in terms of boards.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. If I got a parking ticket yesterday, I am a 
convicted criminal? If I got a ticket in Washington, DC., I cannot 
serve on a board. Yes or no, is that not correct?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. The gentleman misstates the law. Parking 
tickets are not a misdemeanor.

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. A parking ticket is a misdemeanor. What 
about if I got a traffic ticket? What about jaywalking? Then you take a 
5-year period.
  Second, why do we not impose this same requirement on the Members of 
Congress? Why do we not say to America you cannot run for the U.S. 
Congress if you have been convicted of a

[[Page H4626]]

misdemeanor in the past 5 years? I would ask the question to the 
Members of this Congress, how many of us would be able to qualify to 
run for office if we could not run if we were convicted of a traffic 
ticket in a 5-year period?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield 
further, I do not mean to be condescending at all, but there are two 
classes of crimes, felonies and misdemeanors. There is another class of 
offenses that go by a variety of names, including lesser offenses. 
Different States call them different names, but they are not crimes. A 
misdemeanor is a higher level of crime. It is something that you go to 
jail for. It is not a parking ticket, it is not a traffic infraction, 
it is not jaywalking. It is none of those things.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, in my 
State you can go to jail for not paying a traffic ticket. In my State a 
traffic ticket is a misdemeanor. In the State I come from a traffic 
ticket, a moving violation, is a misdemeanor and you can in fact go to 
jail for it.
  What I am trying to understand, and I would hope the gentleman would 
think about this overnight, because tomorrow I am going to try to take 
this out of this bill and I would hope the gentleman would agree with 
me, it makes no sense whatsoever to penalize a person who lives in 
public housing to the extent they cannot serve on a board simply 
because they got a ticket for jaywalking or parking.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope we could move toward a vote here. I think 
a lot of people in the Chamber would hope we could move toward a vote. 
I would urge the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] to maybe take the 
request of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] under 
consideration about the misdemeanor issue. He has got a number of other 
issues that we are going to have to work on between now and tomorrow 
morning, and maybe we can all get together and try to work out some of 
the concerns that he has, and maybe we can see if we can urge all the 
Members to allow us to get to the vote on the three issues. I assume 
this will have a recorded vote. We can then get on to the Brooke 
amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] is going to 
try to protect.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to continue an 
ongoing discussion with any and all Members of the minority to try to 
resolve some of the concerns, as I tried to do throughout the process. 
So we will keep talking to see if there is some way we can resolve our 
differences.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I 
would urge a vote on the Maloney amendment, and hope we can get to it 
very, very shortly.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, just a few words in response to some of the 
things that have been said. I am well aware of the data saying that 
ownership of a pet can be helpful, and that is an important factor. I 
also recognize that this has been a partisan debate, and I cannot 
imagine why this should be a partisan issue, debating pet ownership.
  But I also want to respond to someone who raised the point earlier 
and wanted to bring a human face to the issue and talked about a person 
who is having difficulty getting a pet in public housing. I would also 
like to put a human face on this debate, and that face is mine.
  I happen to have intense allergies to animals, particularly dogs, 
cats and horses. I cannot be in a home that has a dog or a cat, even if 
they are absent from the premises, for more than a half hour at most.
  When I first read that pets were being introduced into nursing homes 
and rest homes, I had an involuntary shudder. I thought if that happens 
and it appears in all nursing homes and rest homes, I will never be 
able to go to one. When we talk about public housing, we should be 
aware that there are lot of people who have allergies.
  Now, I have never talked about my handicap before. It was enough of a 
handicap that I never went to school until I was college age. I had to 
be in my home, because I invariably got sick when I went to school, so 
I was home schooled, not by choice, but out of necessity.
  I think I have always felt that handicap is my problem, it is not 
someone else's problem. So if I am near someone smoking, I do not ask 
them to put out their cigarette, I move away. It is my problem.
  But if you are talking about a public housing situation, I think we 
have to be extremely careful about offering amendments or adopting 
amendments that will restrict the ability of local governments to deal 
with people who have handicaps, such as mine. And there are many, 
perhaps not as severe as mine, but there are many who have them.
  So I advocate a voice of reason on this matter and simply say, why 
not allow the local authorities to make the decision? Why not allow 
them to designate a particular building to be pet-free, or a wing to be 
pet-free, things of that sort, rather than adopting an amendment that 
says thou shalt admit those with pets.
  So I am asking for some reason, some consideration, some 
thoughtfulness on this amendment, rather than prescribing precisely 
what they have to do.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for his very sincere 
comments, and I offered a human face. The gentleman has offered a human 
face. Seeing this 82-year-old lady crying about her companions that she 
had had for years, I think there are two sides to that story of 
allowing local control. The question becomes when you allow local 
control and they would totally eliminate the opportunity for you to 
have in your self-contained apartment the rights to a pet that would 
not interfere with someone who may have had the condition that the 
gentleman now expresses.
  So I think there are two sides to this story. I appreciate the 
gentleman's offering, but we face the same uphill battle when one would 
have local control who say absolutely not, even without the kinds of 
conditions.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that sounds like a good 
alternative, but, unfortunately, it does not work. With anyone with 
high sensitivity and today's modern ventilation system, which 
circulates air throughout all rooms in all apartments in a wing or 
building, it simply does not work. I cannot live in the same building 
with someone who has a pet. Whenever I find an apartment, as I do here, 
I immediately ask whether the entire building is pet-free.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am surprised my friends are not barking. I have been 
fascinated by the debate, too. What strikes me is the fact that this is 
a very interesting debate about fundamental differences in philosophy, 
because I know of no one on our side who does not want elderly people 
who live in public housing or elsewhere to have a pet if they want a 
pet. And then, they ought to find the kind of housing that allows them 
to have that pet. So, I mean those are things that can be put together 
as a result of local control.
  But here, Mr. Chairman, is the problem in what we are now debating. 
We have costly, outdated Government programs that are costing taxpayers 
hundreds of millions of dollars a year, that are enriching trial 
lawyers, that are giving jobs to lawyers to do nothing but write 
regulations. And here is a perfect example of everything that has gone 
wrong in these programs directly out of Washington, because here is a 
program where we have 20 pages of regulations telling folks how to take 
care of their pet. Twenty pages of regulations that trial lawyers can 
then use to take on public housing authorities or take on owners of 
buildings or whatever, take on the owners of the pets. Twenty pages of 
regulations telling people everything that they can do, including how 
many times a day they should dump the cat litter.

[[Page H4627]]

  Mr. Chairman, I would simply suggest that when Washington, DC, begins 
writing regulations in that kind of detail, we have gotten to the point 
where Government is too costly, we have outdated programs, and the fact 
is, that that is the reason why taxpayers are suffering under such a 
huge burden of overtaxation.
  We ought not extend this program further. We ought to get to the idea 
of local controls so that people can have real options about whether or 
not they are going to have pets in their apartment. But let us stop the 
madness that suggests that the only people that run this town are the 
trial lawyers who want as many regulations written as possible so there 
can be as many suits as possible. Twenty pages of regulations on how to 
take care of your pet in the Government code is an absolute absurdity. 
Reject the amendment.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I was over in my office and I could not hardly believe 
what I was hearing when I was listening over there, so I decided to 
come over and add my 2 cents to the rest of the discussion.
  Mr. Chairman, as one who has been a pet owner almost all of my life, 
when I was growing up with dogs and cats and pigeons and everything 
else you can think of, and as one when we had our children, we had dogs 
and cats and things like that.
  Mr. Chairman, I am getting to the point where I am 65. I am getting 
elderly. When I go home tonight, I have got a cat there. Old Bear has 
been with me for 16 years. Now, if I happen to be in a senior citizens 
complex someplace, I probably could not have old Bear. Old Bear would 
have to be put out and go to a new home and it would probably kill him. 
Or Bear would probably have to end up in a pond and that would be the 
end of him.
  Mr. Chairman, I get a lot of solace in Bear. I will be honest, Bear 
comes up to me and when I go home and open up that door tonight after 
all of this silly discussion on whether people should have pets, 
because I think there is no reason for them to not have pets, when I 
open that door Bear is going to be upstairs. But as soon as I open that 
door, Bear comes running and Bear will be at that door to greet me.
  The first thing he is going to want to do is he is going to want 
something to eat, because I have not been there all day and he was not 
eaten since breakfast and he is going to be hungry. It is going to be 
my ability to be able to feed Bear and hear him purr and have him rub 
up against my leg that is going to make me feel pretty good.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not have a wife anymore at home. I have got Bear, 
and Bear is a heck of a lot better as a friend and companion than some 
of the Members of this body, I will be honest. I would much rather be 
at home with Bear than be here.
  So, I would appreciate it very much if Members would permit senior 
citizens all over this country to have that same feeling. It is a good 
feeling. It provides homeliness to a person. It is really like family, 
believe it or not. Bear is family to me. He is not like my sons and 
daughters, but he is family.
  I cannot see the reasoning behind the people that think that pets are 
not really part of an upbringing of a child, if they have been with you 
for a long time since birth, like Bear. Bear was born of Tiger and 
Tiger died back this December and Bear does not have Tiger anymore as a 
mom. Bear has Harold and that is all.
  Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it very much if the Members would 
see fit to let other elderly such as myself to be able to have a pet 
also, even if it is in the senior citizen housing complex, because I 
think it would be a big help to them when they come home some evening 
and they would like to have Bear, or somebody like Bear, around to purr 
and give them a little friendliness.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman New York [Mrs. Maloney]
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
when the Frank amendment numbered 7 in the printed copy is considered, 
debate on the amendment and all amendments thereto shall be limited to 
60 minutes, equally divided between Mr. Frank of Massachusetts and a 
Member opposed.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to 
object, I have not raised this before, then the assumption is that the 
vote on that would follow immediately after the close of the debate? I 
assume we would not be rolling that vote? The vote would come 
immediately at the close of the debate?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, 
yes, that is my understanding.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation 
of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.


              amendment offered by mr. fields of louisiana

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158, 
noes 254, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 154]

                               AYES--158

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Geren
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martini
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Peterson (FL)
     Poshard
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Zimmer

                               NOES--254

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)

[[Page H4628]]


     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Chapman
     de la Garza
     Dooley
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Hayes
     Houghton
     Johnson, Sam
     Laughlin
     McDade
     Molinari
     Oxley
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Schroeder
     Weldon (PA)
     Wise
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2159

  Messrs. COMBEST, RADANOVICH, POMEROY, and SHADEGG changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BALDACCI and Mr. ZIMMER changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  2200

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments to title I?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the prior unanimous-consent agreement regarding my amendment No. 7 
be modified so that the modified version of amendment No. 7 be the one 
considered tomorrow morning.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title I?


                    amendment offered by mr. solomon

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. SOLOMON: Section 105 of the bill 
     (relating to occupancy limitation based on illegal drug use 
     and alcohol abuse), at end of the section add the following 
     new subsection:
       (d) Limitation on Admission of Persons Convicted of Drug-
     Related Offenses.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, each local housing and management authority shall 
     prohibit admission and occupancy to public housing dwelling 
     units by, and assistance under title III to, any person who, 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, has been 
     convicted of illegal possession with intent to sell any 
     controlled substance (as such term is defined in the 
     Controlled Substances Act). This subsection may not be 
     construed to require the termination of tenancy of eviction 
     of any member of a household residing in public housing, or 
     the termination of assistance of any member of an assisted 
     family, who is not a person described in the preceding 
     sentence.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. SOLOMON. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Am I correct in understanding that there are no more 
recorded votes this evening on this legislation or any other 
legislation, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. SOLOMON. So there is no reason for Members to hang around in the 
well to be discourteous.
  The CHAIRMAN. Members should listen to this debate. The Chair prefers 
that they not do it in the well.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
yield, before we send a signal to Members that they can leave the well, 
anyone that has an amendment on this bill ought not to leave this well 
and ought not to leave this room until we have an agreement worked out 
as to what amendments might be discussed this evening. I just want to 
have everybody protected until we have an agreement with the other side 
about what amendments might still come forward this evening, despite 
the fact that there might not be a recorded vote tonight.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts has good advice.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman; I will be very, very brief on my 
amendment. What this amendment simply does is say that anyone who is 
convicted of selling illegal drugs no longer will have access to and be 
able to live in public subsidized housing. It does not affect the rest 
of the family, should one person have to give up his residency there 
because of that act.
  Let me just say that President Clinton just recently has stated a 
policy of one strike and you are out. He has suggested this to all of 
the housing authorities throughout the country. What this does is 
codify it into law; and we have to ask ourselves, Why codify it into 
law?
  Mr. Chairman, I know that where we have this terrible, terrible 
situation of terrorism in public housing throughout the country, that 
we have intimidation of the managers and the members of the housing 
authority, so they are hesitant to kick out these drug dealers, these 
people that have been convicted of selling drugs in these housing 
establishments. What this amendment does, it simply codifies into law 
what the President has asked that the authorities do.
  Assistant Secretary Andrew Cuomo, who is the son of the former 
Governor of New York, came up to Albany, NY, stating that ``We are 
going to get to the bottom of this and we are going to get rid of these 
people and kick them out of these public housing establishments.'' This 
is a follow-up on that. It is going to put teeth into it, and 
therefore, I think the amendment is going to be accepted on both sides 
of the aisle, and I would urge acceptance of my amendment.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from New York, 
I think this is an excellent measure. I just have a question. If there 
is a mom with three kids and one of the kids gets caught selling drugs, 
do the mom and the other two kids have to leave?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, absolutely 
not. They are entitled to, in the last sentence, at the recommendation 
of my good friend the gentleman from Massachusetts, Joe Kennedy, when 
he appeared before the Committee on Rules today, he called to my 
attention that particular problem, the way the amendment was drafted.
  This means that if a brother or sister or father or mother or 
daughter or son is convicted, that they are out. None of the others has 
to leave under any circumstances.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thank the gentleman very much.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the changes the gentleman made in terms of 
the substance of the amendment and making certain that innocent 
individuals that have perpetrated no crime are not going to be 
inadvertently punished as a result of what I think is a straightforward 
protection of people in public housing. We ought to try to do 
everything we can to get rid of drug dealers and repeat offenders. I 
think his amendment is well-intentioned and well thought through, and I 
support it. I urge support of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?


              amendment offered by Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:


[[Page H4629]]


       Amendment offered by Mr. Fields of Louisiana: In section 
     103(b)(5)(i) of the bill (as amended by the manager's 
     amendment)
       (1) at the end of subclause (I), insert ``and''; and
       (2) strike ``and'' at the end of subclause (II) and all 
     that follows through the end of subclause (III).

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very 
simple and straightforward amendment. I talked about this amendment 
earlier. In the manager's amendment, it simply goes in and strikes out 
the portion that deals with the 5-year misdemeanor. That is not a 
requirement of anyone else who serves on a board. It should not be a 
requirement of a person, simply because they live in public housing, 
who serves on a board.
  Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we take that portion and that portion 
only out of the manager's amendment, which will simply provide for all 
the other rules and regulations, or election requirements, rather, 
under the amendment, but it would take out the portion that when the 
tenants have an election, one will not be subject to the provision that 
says that if you have been convicted of a misdemeanor, not a felony but 
a misdemeanor in the past 5 years, you cannot run for a seat on the 
board.
  I do not know if there are any objections to that amendment.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me. I would tell the gentleman, we would be happy to accept 
the gentleman's amendment, in the spirit of cooperation. I think we 
have dealt with the issue to ensure that there is fiduciary 
responsibility by eliminating people who have felony conviction 
backgrounds, which I think is an important objective in terms of 
ensuring that we have integrity on the boards. So I am happy to take 
the amendment, and look forward to continuing to work with the 
gentleman on this.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank 
the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?


           amendment no. 5 offered by mr. fields of louisiana

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer one final amendment 
printed in the Record, amendment No. 5.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Fields of Louisiana: Page 
     17, after line 17, insert the following new subsection:
       (d) Local Advisory Board.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (4), each 
     local housing and management authority shall establish one or 
     more local advisory boards in accordance with this 
     subsection, the membership of which shall adequately reflect 
     and represent all of the residents of the dwelling units 
     owned, operated, or assisted by the local housing and 
     management authority.
       (2) Membership.--Each local advisory board established 
     under this subsection shall be composed of the following 
     members:
       (A) Tenants.--Not less than 60 percent of the members of 
     the board shall be tenants of dwelling units owned, operated, 
     or assisted by the local housing and management authority, 
     including representatives of any resident organizations.
       (B) Other members.--The members of the board, other than 
     the members described in subparagraph (A), shall include--
       (i) representatives of the community in which the local 
     housing and management authority is located; and
       (ii) local government officials of the community in which 
     the local housing and management authority is located.
       (3) Purpose.--Each local advisory board established under 
     this subsection shall assist and make recommendations 
     regarding the development of the local housing management 
     plan for the authority. The local housing and management 
     authority shall consider the recommendations of the local 
     advisory board in preparing the final local housing 
     management plan, and shall include a copy of those 
     recommendations in the local housing management plan 
     submitted to the Secretary under section 107.
       (4) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the requirements of 
     this subsection with respect to tenant representation on the 
     local advisory board of a local housing and management 
     authority, if the authority demonstrates to the satisfaction 
     of the Secretary that a resident council or other tenant 
     organization of the local housing and management authority 
     adequately represents the interests of the tenants of the 
     authority.

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple 
amendment. It simply provides that each of the housing authorities have 
or create an advisory council. We have just voted whereby members can 
serve on a board; only one tenant, as the bill was presently perfected, 
only one person can actually serve on a board who lives in a housing 
facility.
  This amendment is very simple. It provides for an advisory board. 
That advisory board will not be 100 percent residents. That advisory 
board will be 60 percent residents, which means that the advisory board 
will take 60 percent of its membership from the actual residents of the 
housing facility, and they will simply make recommendations, not rules 
and regulations, but only recommendations to the actual board. We would 
hope as a result of this, this board will take those issues into 
consideration.
  Mr. Chairman, many housing authorities today have implemented 
advisory councils or advisory boards simply because they feel that is a 
true way to get input from the residents who live in public housing. 
This is a very straightforward, noncontroversial amendment that allows 
an individual to serve on an advisory board for the facility that he or 
she lives in, to make recommendations, recommendations only, to the 
board itself as to how they feel different rules should be implemented 
upon them that they have to live with.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not know if there is any opposition to this 
amendment, but that is what it does.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] offers 
this in good faith with the expectation that it will increase citizen 
participation. I, in fact, am fully in support of citizen participation 
in terms of decisionmaking by local housing authorities. In fact, the 
bill that has been offered has well over a page of language that asks 
for housing authorities to ensure that there is maximum citizen 
participation and integration with the community. We deeply believe 
that communities need to be involved in establishing local solutions to 
some of the challenges that are facing them.
  What we disagree with is the need to create another level of 
bureaucracy, another local advisory board that we think, that I think, 
frankly, is potentially stilted. In some cases it is going to be 
obsolete. We have citizen participation that will be communicating with 
the housing authorities via electronic media, whether it is computers 
in a number of different areas.
  We certainly allow the opportunity to have various community forums. 
There are many different ways of assuring maximum citizen participation 
without creating another board that would purport to substitute for a 
more aggressive effort to ensure maximum citizen participation.
  Mr. Chairman, this is, in effect, micromanagement at the local level 
to ensure what level and what type and what form citizen participation 
with respect to housing authorities will take. For that reason, it is 
inconsistent with the core principles of this bill, which are to allow 
maximum local control over housing authorities, locally driven 
solutions. I urge a ``no'' vote.

                              {time}  2215

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Fields amendment which 
establishes local advisory boards for public housing residents.
  One of the objectives of public housing reform is to encourage 
individuals to become involved in their communities and to take 
responsibility for the neighborhoods in which they live. The Fields 
amendment will give residents the opportunity to assume that 
responsibility by requiring housing authorities to establish local 
advisory boards with 60 percent of its membership made up of residents 
of that authority. In addition, the amendment requires that

[[Page H4630]]

the recommendations made by this advisory board be considered by the 
housing authority in the management plan that it submits to HUD.
  In so doing, the Fields amendment gives residents a strong voice that 
will be heard by the housing authority and HUD when making management 
decisions that directly impact the lives of residents. This amendment 
is a positive step towards strengthening our goal of personal 
responsibility by helping tenants take control of their own lives and 
to determine their own destiny.
  I encourage Members to vote ``yes'' on the Fields amendment.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us already makes substantial 
improvements in the opportunity for citizens in the community or county 
to make their views known as the local management plan is prepared.
  First of all, under the legislation, of course, we have the mandate 
that larger communities with over 250 housing units will have a 
resident of a public housing authority on the local housing authority. 
That is one thing that is already in the bill. This amendment, I think, 
across the board, for every community in the country that has a housing 
authority, no matter how small that community might be, to require them 
to have a citizens advisory committee, it is another layer of 
bureaucracy with unclear consequences, particularly if the local 
housing management agency does not agree to follow the recommendations 
of the advisory board.
  I think it is unclear what the costs will be associated with that 
advisory committee but I would like to call our colleagues' attention 
to a section that is in the bill that provides specifically for 
additional citizen participation that is now not required by the 
operations of housing authorities today.
  The Chairman has already made reference to it but I want to bring out 
some of the details of the citizen participation section found on page 
31.
  Before they submit the local management plan, the local housing 
authority shall make the plan or the amendments publicly available in a 
manner that affords affected public housing residents and assisted 
families and others an opportunity to review the plan, and then 
provides for a period of not less than 60 days for that review.
  Beyond that, the local housing and management authority shall 
consider all comments, and to make sure that anybody that reviews the 
plan has a full appreciation of the comments coming from the citizenry, 
including from public housing residents, the plan, once submitted, must 
contain a summary of such comments or views. It shall be attached to 
the plan, the amendments, or the reports submitted. Therefore, HUD will 
have an opportunity to look at the kind of citizen participation 
comments that came forward as a part of the local hearing process
  I think we have really made quite substantial improvements to the way 
citizens have an opportunity to express their views on the management 
of the local housing authority. This adds another layer of bureaucracy. 
I strongly oppose it because it applies across the board, and I think 
it is unnecessary.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I guess I am able to offer an additional insight to 
this question of an advisory board. I bring to this microphone again 
some long years of history as a layman dealing with public housing in 
our community in Houston. I think we are well known for having, as I 
indicated, some very exciting ventures in Houston's housing authority, 
including one of the first experimental combined Texas Southern 
University/public schools located in the Houston housing development by 
the name of Cuney Homes. There is something to that decision. It came 
about through community involvement. And when there is community 
involvement, solutions come about in a manner when all who are 
stakeholders can appreciate it.
  Just a couple of weeks ago, Secretary Cisneros visited Houston and we 
had a difficult problem. In fact, we still have a difficult problem 
with one of our housing developments called Allen Parkway Village. But 
at the time Secretary Cisneros joined us in Houston, we gathered 
together community representatives, businesspersons, people from the 
ministerial community, lawyers and others who indicated that they too 
had a concern with Allen Parkway Village even though they were not 
residents of that village. Out of that discussion came the suggestion 
that we form an advisory board, an advisory board that would be the 
stakeholders beyond those individuals who are residents.
  I am very pleased to say that such advisory board does exist. But the 
Fields amendment embodies and institutionalizes what is an effective 
tool for the community, and, that is, an advisory board that will have 
input and impact in solving problems and bringing fresh ideas to our 
local authorities. Why reject an opportunity for participation? Why not 
welcome and embrace? If we are talking about sending this important 
issue to our local communities, and I would offer to say that the 
Houston Housing Authority or any other housing authority does not have 
all of the answers. The answers come from businesspersons, teachers, 
doctors, lawyers, community activists and residents, and they can do 
that through an advisory board. I simply say the amendment of the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] is right, and I rise to support 
it.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for 
her support of the amendment. I would like to make the Members of the 
House aware of the fact that this very amendment is in the Senate bill, 
S. 1260, which contains the very language that this amendment contains 
and I am hopeful if this amendment is not adopted by this House tonight 
that in conference this amendment will in fact have an opportunity to 
be adopted so that it can in fact be the law of the land. But I truly 
believe that the more input we get from people who live in public 
housing in term of how we shape their living conditions, who knows best 
than them. I just think this is a step in the right direction. I would 
like to commend many of those local areas across the country who are 
now implementing local advisory boards today, like the city of New 
Orleans from my own State. They have an advisory board that consists of 
residents. I think that is a step in the right direction.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would 
simply thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] and say that I 
think the advisory committee that we have organized in Houston has the 
potential of being a very vital resource to bringing solutions to a 
very difficult problem. I leave the microphone with a question. If we 
talk about private/public partnerships, what better opportunity for 
private/public partnerships on the local level than to create advisory 
boards all who will have a stake in this issue and work with those who 
live in public housing?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields].
  The amendment was rejected.


             amendment offered by ms. jackson-lee of texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offered an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas: Page 38, 
     line 24, strike ``and''.
       Page 39, line 3, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 39, after line 3, insert the following new paragraph:
       (7) be entitled to appeal such written decision to a 
     mandated impartial regional appeals board created by the 
     local housing and management authorities located in the same 
     region, such appeals board should include resident 
     representation.

  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the amendment. I do not have a copy of that amendment. I am wondering 
if I can get a printed copy of that.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New York reserves a 
point of order.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment in the 
spirit of what I have been listening to throughout the night. Even 
though

[[Page H4631]]

we have had disagreement on several amendments, we have talked about an 
opportunity for fuller participation and for residents to in fact 
become stakeholders in the improvement and providing solutions to 
problems that may result as being renters, residents in the normal 
course of business.
  This amendment refers to the grievance procedure and it adds a moment 
of fairness that I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
would certainly welcome its addition.
  Let me first indicate that this process of appeal that I am adding 
does not in any way deal with criminal activities that might result in 
eviction or violation of the lease agreement.
  Take this scenario. A resident living in a public housing unit has 
the fullest of pride about their place where they live and they go and 
they paint the room a different color. The appeal process is that some 
impartial person, it could be a single person that the housing 
authority would designate, could listen to them. But then the final 
decision is written by the housing authority or its management entity. 
There is no opportunity for an appeal. We realize that those who live 
in these kinds of facilities are in fear of losing their housing. They 
have no other resources. It might be because they have raised the rent, 
the housing authority. It might be because the resident has been 
charged with noise in the hallway, something that all of us have had 
happen with children in the house, dogs, cats. They might have been 
charged late fees and they actually got their rent in on time. They are 
fearful of losing their opportunity to be in public housing. So they 
get a written decision initially. This provision provides for an appeal 
process. Is the process in court? No. Is the process way up in 
Washington with the national government interfering in local business? 
No, it is not with HUD.

  What happens is, is that the housing authority can create a locally 
directed appeals board that is made up on a regional basis such as, for 
example, the southwest part of the country, representatives from those 
areas to then accept appeals for this individual who feels that they 
have been aggrieved.
  Remember, now, someone would ask the question, Are you giving the 
resident in a public housing authority more rights than Mrs. Smith who 
is down the street in an apartment building? I would say no.
  Mrs. Smith may have the wherewithal and the resources to go to a 
small claims court or to take it up to a higher level. I am suggesting 
that we not go to court.
  I wish that we had had something on this order and this structure 17 
years ago when we were dealing with the issue of Allen Parkway Village.
  I have always believed that when there is an opportunity to discuss 
the problem, there may be an opportunity to resolve the problem.

                              {time}  2230

  This appeals board would be a simple extension of the process now 
cited and would allow that aggrieved resident to be on equal plane with 
his or her neighbor in a private facility who had the ability to go to 
a small claims court.
  I simply would ask that my colleagues and the chairman, who has 
worked very hard, listen to the offering of an opportunity for 
residents to be respected, to have the right to an appropriate appeal 
process, and to take some dignity in the fact that they have rights and 
due process as well.
  Just think of it: You have no recourse on raising the rent, painting 
your apartment a different color, arguing that the noise in the hallway 
was not your child, and generally protecting yourselves from some sort 
of penalty that you may not be able to pay, because you were charged 
with something and you had no right to pursue it if you got a decision 
that was against you.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that this amendment be accepted. I would ask for 
support by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I would ask them 
simply to put themselves in the shoes of our residents in public 
housing throughout this Nation. All they have asked when I have spoken 
to them, whether it has been Kelly Courts or Cuney Homes or Allen 
Parkway Village, is simply dignity and respect and the right to be 
treated fairly. They too will join in to ensure that better housing is 
created for all Americans.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). Does the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Lazio] insist on his point of order?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, continuing to reserve my point 
of order, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentlewoman from Texas for her 
interest in ensuring that there are appropriate levels of due process 
for people that may be aggrieved in terms of administrative decisions. 
Let me suggest, however, that we have gone through considerable effort 
to ensure that we have a fair and equitable administrative grievance 
procedure in the bill.
  For example, we allow for a clear opportunity for a hearing by an 
impartial party upon timely request within a reasonable period of time; 
the ability to examine any written documents or records or regulations 
that might be raised with respect to the proposed actions; the ability 
to be represented by another party of their choice at any such hearing; 
and the abilities to call witnesses and to have others make statements 
on their behalf.
  Beyond that, somebody who is subject to an administrative procedure, 
including a possible procedure for eviction, is entitled to pursue all 
of their rights through the courts of the State and of our Nation. Due 
process is thoroughly considered and assured, and that is in the bill.
  The effort by the gentlewoman, whom I respect greatly, I think still 
has a number of different issues that are left unresolved. For example, 
we do not have any explanation, I have not received this before today 
as the subcommittee chairman, I just received this just now, we have 
one paragraph written. We have no idea who is part of the board, how 
big the board will be, who will govern the board, what rules of process 
there might be, what regions might be considered, how it is 
constituted, who sets it up, and so on and so forth.
  I would suggest to the gentlewoman that perhaps we can continue to 
talk about this and see if there is an appropriate concern that she 
has, and I am sure she has a concern, that we might address in the 
following weeks and months. This probably is not the right time and the 
right place to do this.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the distinguished 
chair of the subcommittee for this opportunity. I think that it is 
clear in section 110 under ``administrative grievance procedure,'' page 
38, lines 12 through 24, that six procedures have been laid out that 
certainly address requirements for expressing these grievances.
  But the gentlewoman from Texas is expressing a part of the due 
process concern that I think is legitimate, and I would appreciate any 
information the distinguished chairman can give with respect to the 
appellate process to which the gentlewoman from Texas is addressing.
  It is clear in section 110 that people who live in public housing are 
to be advised of specific grounds of any of the proposed adverse local 
housing and management actions. They have an opportunity for a hearing, 
an opportunity to examine any documents. They are entitled to be 
represented by another person of their choice at a hearing. They are 
entitled to ask questions and receive a written decision.
  But the gentlewoman's fundamental concern, which is a fundamental 
tenet of justice in this society, is due process, and that is the 
appellate process.
  Mr. Chairman, if the distinguished chairman would address that, I 
would appreciate it.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to 
thank the gentleman, my neighbor from Illinois, Mr. Jackson, and again 
compliment him for his interest in due process.
  Again, the gentleman has laid out the six different types of due 
process that will be afforded a party that feels that they have been 
wronged. In addition to this, an individual who feels they are wronged 
through the administrative process has the complete and full ability 
that is reemphasized in this bill to continue to use the legal process, 
both at the trial level and up the

[[Page H4632]]

process through various appellate divisions within a particular court.
  The concern I have, in addition to the fact that I think with respect 
to how this proposed appellate board is constituted and what the rules 
might be and what regions are considered and so on and so forth, which 
is not laid out in this amendment, is that during this entire time, 
when we are going through yet another administrative procedure, 
somebody who may be a danger to the other residents in a particular 
project will remain in place. While we want to allow for full due 
process and for a complete hearing, and we make that clear, by ensuring 
that people do not just get a written decision, but are allowed to 
present witnesses and hear testimony and present documents and have 
someone represent them, and after that they feel they are still 
wronged, they have the ability to do to court. There comes a time if 
somebody is disruptive, is truly wronging other residents in a public 
housing project, that they need to be separated from that and there 
needs to be order as there is in the places we all live in.
  For that reason, I am not able to support this.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman insist upon his point of 
order?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of the 
point of order.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman 
for his hard work. I think we have had some vigorous debates this 
evening. I am here because I have lived with the problem for about 17 
years dealing with public housing, and I truly believe that there is 
still a solution.
  If I might comment on some of the points that the gentleman made and 
offer to him some answers to his concern, first of all, we have already 
spoken about the abilities of local housing authorities to manage and 
to make decisions. I would hope the gentleman would have the same kind 
of confidence in the local housing authorities in a certain region as 
defined by HUD. There is a Southwest Region, we have an office in 
Dallas. I imagine there are regions on the East Coast where the 
gentleman is from, New York. Those are the designated areas that would 
regionally comprise an appeals board. I would believe, and it is 
evident, just as you have left on this lower level, to the housing 
authority, the decision of who might be on this board, but include some 
participation from residents. Mind you, I did not even add a 
percentage.
  Also this does not go to those dangerous entities, such as drug 
users. Somebody might be gun running. Somebody might be running or 
alleged to be running prostitution. Those are criminal activities and a 
total breach of the lease.
  These are incidents where people might live at the Watergate and 
would have the wherewithal to sue the management company or go into a 
court of higher authority. But when you have people living in public 
housing who are in fear every moment that they are doing something that 
might cause them to be wrongly decided upon, if you will, then they do 
not have the resources, as the gentleman has argued, of going to court.
  Under the Administrative Procedures Act we realize there is a hearing 
officer and then there is a higher tribunal before you even have to get 
to court. That is to ensure that, we thought, we would not have 
individuals clogging up the courts. On many occasions the 
Administrative Procedures Act has worked effectively. In Texas, for 
example, and around the country, we have gone to mediation. Lawyers are 
now doing mediation to avoid going into court.
  I wish we could encourage more opportunity for citizens to have the 
right to address their grievances in a setting that is non-court like, 
and I am an attorney, so that problems can be solved at an earlier 
stage than what might occur later on.
  Public housing residents, I would say to the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Jackson], do not have some of the resources to go to court. This 
is an administrative proceeding of sorts that would then come under the 
provision where costs would be attributable, if any, minimally so, to 
the housing authority.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am 
operating under the impression that due process is not asking for very 
much. If the chairman is very concerned about expediting the process, 
then we need an expeditious due process concern. I think that the 
concern that the gentlewoman has raised for this particular 
administrative grievance procedure is one that the committee should 
certainly consider, and I would certainly encourage the chairman to 
consider due process, because we would not want to create a process 
whereby public housing residents tend to or end up in court because of 
our failure to honor a fundamental tenet of American justice.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield 
further, I appreciate the gentleman's characterization of this 
amendment, because that is just what it is. It is to provide an 
opportunity for those who are most frightened about not having housing, 
some of whom have been on waiting lists for years. The community I come 
from has had people on waiting lists for years, and we have had lists 
as high as 15,000 individuals on waiting lists.
  This is a procedure that helps clarify the problem, provides a 
hearing, and then an appeal, and gives a fair opportunity for this 
resident to air out their grievance and to address their grievance.
  I would ask the chairman to consider what his concerns were and have 
us have an opportunity to look at these concerns, but not deny, not 
deny the opportunity for those who are residents, who are not violating 
criminal laws or threatening anyone, to have an opportunity to appeal 
their grievance in an appropriate manner.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to title I?


                 amendment no. 2 offered by mr. ehrlich

  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Ehrlich: Page 43, after line 
     16 insert the following new section:

     SEC. 115. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the 
     amounts provided under this Act may be used for the purpose 
     of funding the relocation of public housing residents and 
     applicants from Baltimore City, Maryland, to other 
     jurisdiction in the State of Maryland if such relocation is 
     in connection with any settlement, consent decree, 
     injunction, judgment, or other resolution of litigation 
     brought by public housing residents of Baltimore City, 
     Maryland, concerning the demolition of certain public housing 
     units in such city.

  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, I am given to understand that a point of 
order will be raised with respect to amendment No. 2. It is my intent 
to withdraw this amendment. But before I do, I want to make a number of 
points and then enter into a colloquy with the chair of the 
subcommittee.
  The first thing I would like to do is congratulate the chairman of 
the subcommittee, who has had a long day. He is a man of integrity, 
class and intelligence, and I truly appreciate his friendship and I 
appreciate the sensitivity he has shown toward me with respect to the 
issue of HUD and the lawsuit in Baltimore City over the past few weeks.
  It is very interesting, Mr. Chairman, that my amendment drew a lot of 
attention from Members of this House over the last two days. I received 
a lot of phone calls from folks on both sides of the aisle, because 
there is a genuine concern out there that there is a Federal department 
increasingly out of control.
  This department believes it should engage in policymaking far outside 
the scope of its constitutional authority. It threatens and sues people 
and groups who dare oppose its policies.

                              {time}  2245

  It seeks to use unelected groups to bypass the electoral process. It 
uses

[[Page H4633]]

the judicial process to create class- and race-based remedies and 
programs it could not pass on this floor, in this House, in the Senate 
of the United States.
  For decades, HUD policies have contributed to the denigration of the 
quality of life of many neighborhoods in the Baltimore Metropolitan 
area. Now, in Baltimore, HUD seeks to create a special race-based 
voucher to be given to public housing residents to be used in middle-
class neighborhoods.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask what kind of message are we sending working folks 
in this country of all races, working folks of all races? Why do we 
allow this department to further a sense of entitlement with respect to 
Federal housing policy? Whatever happened to the work ethic in the 
context of Federal housing policy in this country?
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with my good friend and the 
ranking member on our joint mission to reform Federal housing policy in 
this country and to rein in an increasingly belligerent, aggressive, 
and out of control Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy 
with the gentleman from Long Island, NY [Mr. Lazio], my colleague and 
my friend, the chairman of the subcommittee.
  He and the staff have been very helpful and supportive of my efforts 
to make sure that HUD does not run roughshod over the Constitution when 
implementing the statutes previously passed by this Congress. At this 
time, I would like to yield to the chairman of the subcommittee so that 
he might offer his own observations of what I have described over the 
last 5 minutes.
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I thank the 
gentleman from Maryland for his very kind remarks, for being one the 
most energetic Members of this body, and for his commitment to his own 
neighborhood in the area of Baltimore.
  Mr. Chairman, it is ironic as we consider this housing bill, one that 
makes communities responsible for their own planning and development, 
that in the area of Baltimore, HUD is negotiating a plan like the one 
described by the gentleman. Unfortunately, the bureaucrats and 
attorneys at HUD believe they know what is best for Baltimore and 
surrounding suburbs. I do not share this view and this misguided 
approach, the concept that Washington knows best is one of the 
catalysts for the legislation we are now considering.

  Mr. Chairman, we both believe that rental assistance recipients 
should be educated about the rental marketplace and informed of their 
total options. I believe counseling is an integral part of this 
process. I strongly object to the Federal bureaucrats attempting to 
dictate outcomes and limit options available to renters. Such a policy 
runs counter to what we are trying to achieve here today.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comment and 
ask for his continued assistance. HUD attorneys need to be reminded 
that they can enter into all the questionable consent decrees they 
desire, but that it is this Congress with the ultimate control over the 
appropriation of Federal funds.
  HUD should know that we are not bound to fund programs and policies 
which could not pass this Congress. We are now in the midst of 
consideration of the fiscal year 1997 budget, and I look forward to 
working with the VA-HUD appropriations subcommittee and its chairman, 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], to make sure that HUD does 
not spend taxpayer dollars in a matter inconsistent with the will of 
this body.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue 
to yield, I share the gentleman's sentiments and would like to make 
sure that our subcommittee will continue to monitor the actions of HUD 
as this relates to the Baltimore consent decree, and many other areas 
around the country.
  It is my understanding that the designers of the Section 8 program 
never intended for the use of vouchers to be limited to an area based 
solely upon race. I have strong concerns about the manner in which HUD 
is proceeding with certain lawsuits, and I thank the gentleman for 
bringing this startling pattern to the attention of this Congress.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. (Mr. Hobson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to title I?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title II.
  The text of title II is as follows:
                        TITLE II--PUBLIC HOUSING
                        Subtitle A--Block Grants

     SEC. 201. BLOCK GRANT CONTRACTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall enter into contracts 
     with local housing and management authorities under which--
       (1) the Secretary agrees to make a block grant under this 
     title, in the amount provided under section 202(c), for 
     assistance for low-income housing to the local housing and 
     management authority for each fiscal year covered by the 
     contract; and
       (2) the authority agrees--
       (A) to provide safe, clean, and healthy housing that is 
     affordable to low-income families and services for families 
     in such housing;
       (B) to operate, or provide for the operation, of such 
     housing in a financially sound manner;
       (C) to use the block grant amounts in accordance with this 
     title and the local housing management plan for the authority 
     that complies with the requirements of section 107;
       (D) to involve residents of housing assisted with block 
     grant amounts in functions and decisions relating to 
     management and the quality of life in such housing;
       (E) that the management of the public housing of the 
     authority shall be subject to actions authorized under 
     subtitle B of title IV;
       (F) that the Secretary may take actions under section 205 
     with respect to improper use of grant amounts provided under 
     the contract; and
       (G) to otherwise comply with the requirements under this 
     title.
       (b) Modification.--Contracts and agreements between the 
     Secretary and a local housing and management authority may 
     not be amended in a manner which would--
       (1) impair the rights of--
       (A) leaseholders for units assisted pursuant to a contract 
     or agreement; or
       (B) the holders of any outstanding obligations of the local 
     housing and management authority involved for which annual 
     contributions have been pledged; or
       (2) provide for payment of block grant amounts under this 
     title in an amount exceeding the allocation for the authority 
     determined under section 204.

     Any rule of law contrary to this subsection shall be deemed 
     inapplicable.
       (c) Conditions on Renewal.--Each block grant contract under 
     this section shall provide, as a condition of renewal of the 
     contract with the local housing and management authority, 
     that the authority's accreditation be renewed by the Housing 
     Foundation and Accreditation Board pursuant to review under 
     section 433 by such Board.

     SEC. 202. BLOCK GRANT AUTHORITY AND AMOUNT.

       (a) Authority.--The Secretary shall make block grants under 
     this title to eligible local housing and management 
     authorities in accordance with block grant contracts under 
     section 201.
       (b) Eligibility.--A local housing and management authority 
     shall be an eligible local housing and management authority 
     with respect to a fiscal year for purposes of this title only 
     if--
       (1) the Secretary has entered into a block grant contract 
     with the authority;
       (2) the authority has submitted a local housing management 
     plan to the Secretary for such fiscal year;
       (3) the plan has been determined to comply with the 
     requirements under section 107 and the Secretary has not 
     notified the authority that the plan fails to comply with 
     such requirements;
       (4) the authority is accredited under section 433 by the 
     Housing Foundation and Accreditation Board;
       (5) the authority is exempt from local taxes, as provided 
     under subsection (d), or receives a contribution, as provided 
     under such subsection;
       (6) no member of the board of directors or other governing 
     body of the authority, or the executive director, has been 
     convicted of a felony;
       (7) the authority has entered into an agreement providing 
     for local cooperation in accordance with subsection (e); and
       (8) the authority has not been disqualified for a grant 
     pursuant to section 205(a) or subtitle B of title IV.
       (c) Amount of Grants.--The amount of the grant under this 
     title for a local housing and management authority for a 
     fiscal year shall be the amount of the allocation for the 
     authority determined under section 204, except as otherwise 
     provided in this title and subtitle B of title IV.
       (d) Payments in Lieu of State and Local Taxation of Public 
     Housing Developments.--
       (1) Exemption from taxation.--A local housing and 
     management authority may receive a block grant under this 
     title only if--
       (A)(i) the developments of the authority (exclusive of any 
     portions not assisted with amounts provided under this title) 
     are exempt from all real and personal property taxes levied 
     or imposed by the State, city, county, or other political 
     subdivision; and
       (ii) the local housing and management authority makes 
     payments in lieu of taxes to such

[[Page H4634]]

     taxing authority equal to 10 percent of the sum, for units 
     charged in the developments of the authority, of the 
     difference between the gross rent and the utility cost, or 
     such lesser amount as is--
       (I) prescribed by State law;
       (II) agreed to by the local governing body in its agreement 
     under subsection (e) for local cooperation with the local 
     housing and management authority or under a waiver by the 
     local governing body; or
       (III) due to failure of a local public body or bodies other 
     than the local housing and management authority to perform 
     any obligation under such agreement; or
       (B) the authority complies with the requirements under 
     subparagraph (A) with respect to public housing developments 
     (including public housing units in mixed-income 
     developments), but the authority agrees that the units other 
     than public housing units in any mixed-income developments 
     (as such term is defined in section 221(c)(2)) shall not be 
     subject to any otherwise applicable real property taxes 
     imposed by the State, city, county or other political 
     subdivision.
       (2) Effect of failure to exempt from taxation.--
     Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a local housing and management 
     authority that does not comply with the requirements under 
     such paragraph may receive a block grant under this title, 
     but only if the State, city, county, or other political 
     subdivision in which the development is situated contributes, 
     in the form of cash or tax remission, the amount by which the 
     taxes paid with respect to the development exceed 10 percent 
     of the gross rent and utility cost charged in the 
     development.
       (e) Local Cooperation.--In recognition that there should be 
     local determination of the need for low-income housing to 
     meet needs not being adequately met by private enterprise, 
     the Secretary may not make any grant under this title to a 
     local housing and management authority unless the governing 
     body of the locality involved has entered into an agreement 
     with the authority providing for the local cooperation 
     required by the Secretary pursuant to this title.
       (f) Exception.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), the 
     Secretary may make a grant under this title for a local 
     housing and management authority that is not an eligible 
     local housing and management authority but only for the 
     period necessary to secure, in accordance with this title, an 
     alternative local housing and management authority for the 
     public housing of the ineligible authority.

     SEC. 203. ELIGIBLE AND REQUIRED ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Eligible Activities.--Except as provided in subsection 
     (b), amounts from a grant made under this title may be used 
     only for the following activities and costs:
       (1) Production.--Production of public housing developments 
     and any production costs.
       (2) Operation.--Operation of public housing developments in 
     a manner appropriate to ensure the viability of the 
     developments as low-income housing and provision of safety, 
     security, and law enforcement measures and activities 
     necessary to protect residents from crime, which shall 
     include providing adequate operating services and reserve 
     funds.
       (3) Modernization.--Improvement of the physical condition 
     of existing public housing developments (including routine 
     and timely improvements, rehabilitation, and replacement of 
     systems, and major rehabilitation, redesign, reconstruction, 
     and redevelopment) and upgrading the management and operation 
     of such developments, to ensure that such developments 
     continue to be available for use as low-income housing.
       (4) Resident programs.--Provision of social, educational, 
     employment, self-sufficiency, and other services to the 
     residents of public housing developments, including providing 
     part of the non-Federal share required in connection with 
     activities undertaken under Federal grant-in-aid programs.
       (5) Homeownership activities.--Activities in connection 
     with a homeownership program for public housing residents 
     under subtitle D, including providing financing or assistance 
     for purchasing housing, or the provision of financial 
     assistance to resident management corporations or resident 
     councils to obtain training, technical assistance, and 
     educational assistance to promote homeownership 
     opportunities.
       (6) Resident management activities.--Activities in 
     connection with establishing, organizing, training, and 
     assisting resident councils and resident management 
     corporations for public housing developments.
       (7) Demolition and disposition activities.--Activities in 
     connection with the disposition or demolition of public 
     housing under section 261.
       (8) Payments in lieu of taxes.--Payments in accordance with 
     the requirement under section 202(d)(1).
       (9) Emergency corrections.--Correction of conditions that 
     constitute an immediate threat to the health or safety of 
     residents of public housing developments, without regard to 
     whether the need for such correction is indicated in the 
     local housing management plan of the authority.
       (10) Preparation of local housing management plans.--
     Preparation of local housing management plans (including 
     reasonable costs that may be necessary to assist residents in 
     participating in the planning process in a meaningful way) 
     and conducting annual financial and performance audits under 
     section 432.
       (11) LHMA insurance.--Purchase of insurance by local 
     housing and management authorities (and their contractors), 
     except that--
       (A) any such insurance so purchased shall be competitively 
     selected;
       (B) any coverage provided under such policies, as certified 
     by the authority, shall provide reasonable coverage for the 
     risk of liability exposure, taking into consideration the 
     potential liability concerns inherent in the testing and 
     abatement of lead-based paint, and the managerial and quality 
     assurance responsibilities associated with the conduct of 
     such activities; and
       (C) notwithstanding any other provision of State or Federal 
     law, regulation or other requirement, any line of insurance 
     from a nonprofit insurance entity, owned and controlled by 
     local housing and management authorities and approved by the 
     Secretary, may be purchased without regard to competitive 
     procurement.
       (12) Payment of outstanding development bonds and notes 
     issued under 1937 act.--Payment of principal and interest 
     payable on obligations issued pursuant to section 5 of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before the 
     date of the enactment of this Act) by a local housing and 
     management authority to finance the production of public 
     housing, except that the Secretary shall retain the authority 
     to forgive such debt.
       (13) Mutual help homeownership opportunity programs for 
     indian housing authorities.--In the case of an Indian housing 
     authority, production, operation, and modernization of 
     developments under a mutual help homeownership program 
     subject to the requirements under section 202 of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect immediately before 
     the enactment of this Act), except that any reference in such 
     section to assistance under such section or such Act shall be 
     construed to refer to assistance under this title and 
     subsection (b) of such section shall not apply.
       (b) Required Conversion of Assistance for Public Housing to 
     Rental Housing Assistance.--
       (1) Requirement.--A local housing and management authority 
     that receives grant amounts under this title shall provide 
     assistance in the form of rental housing assistance under 
     title III or appropriate site revitalization or other 
     appropriate capital improvements approved by the Secretary, 
     in lieu of assisting the operation and modernization of any 
     building or buildings of public housing, if the authority 
     provides sufficient evidence to the Secretary that--
       (A) the building is distressed or substantially vacant;
       (B) the estimated cost of continued operation and 
     modernization of the building exceeds the cost of providing 
     choice-based rental assistance under title III; and
       (C) there is a sufficient supply of available and 
     affordable housing to make the use of such voucher assistance 
     feasible.
       (2) Use of Other Amounts.--In addition to grant amounts 
     under this title attributable (pursuant to the formula under 
     section 204) to the building or buildings identified under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary may use amounts provided in 
     appropriation Acts for incremental choice-based housing 
     assistance and, to the extent approved in advance, for the 
     renewal of assistance under section 8 of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before the date of 
     enactment of this Act), for assistance under title III for 
     families residing in such building or buildings or for 
     appropriate site revitalization or other appropriate capital 
     improvements approved by the Secretary.
       (3) Enforcement.--The Secretary shall take appropriate 
     action to ensure conversion of any building or buildings 
     identified under paragraph (1) and any other appropriate 
     action under this subsection, if the local housing and 
     management authority fails to take appropriate action under 
     this subsection.
       (4) Failure of LHMA's to comply with conversion 
     requirement.--If the Secretary determines that--
       (A) a local housing and management authority has failed 
     under paragraph (1) to identify a building or buildings in a 
     timely manner,
       (B) a local housing and management authority has failed to 
     identify one or more buildings which the Secretary determines 
     should have been identified under paragraph (1), or
       (C) one or more of the buildings identified by the local 
     housing and management authority pursuant to paragraph (1) 
     should not, in the determination of the Secretary, have been 
     identified under that paragraph,

     the Secretary may identify a building or buildings for 
     conversion and other appropriate action pursuant to this 
     subsection.
       (5) Cessation of unnecessary spending.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, if, in the determination of the 
     Secretary, a building or buildings meets or is likely to meet 
     the criteria set forth in paragraph (1), the Secretary may 
     direct the local housing and management authority to cease 
     additional spending in connection with such building or 
     buildings, except to the extent that additional spending is 
     necessary to ensure safe, clean, and healthy housing until 
     the Secretary determines or approves an appropriate course of 
     action with respect to such building or buildings under this 
     subsection.
       (6) Use of budget authority.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, if a building or buildings are identified 
     pursuant to paragraph (1), the Secretary may authorize or 
     direct the transfer, to the choice-based or tenant-based 
     assistance program of such authority or to appropriate site 
     revitalization or other capital improvements approved by the 
     Secretary, of--
       (A) in the case of an authority receiving assistance under 
     the comprehensive improvement assistance program, any amounts 
     obligated by the Secretary for the modernization of such 
     building or buildings pursuant to section 14 of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937, as in effect immediately before 
     the date of enactment of this Act;
       (B) in the case of an authority receiving public and Indian 
     housing modernization assistance by formula pursuant to such 
     section 14, any amounts provided to the authority which are 
     attributable pursuant to the formula for allocating such 
     assistance to such building or buildings;

[[Page H4635]]

       (C) in the case of an authority receiving assistance for 
     the major reconstruction of obsolete projects, any amounts 
     obligated by the Secretary for the major reconstruction of 
     such building or buildings pursuant to section 5(j)(2) of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937, as in effect immediately 
     before the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (D) in the case of an authority receiving assistance 
     pursuant to the formula under section 204, any amounts 
     provided to the authority which are attributable pursuant to 
     the formula for allocating such assistance to such building 
     or buildings.
       (c) Fungibility of Amounts.--Any amounts provided under a 
     block grant under this title may be used for any eligible 
     activity under subsection (a) or for conversion under 
     subsection (b), notwithstanding whether such amounts are 
     attributable to the operating allocation under section 
     204(d)(1) or the capital improvements allocation for the 
     local housing and management authority determined under 
     section 204(d)(2).
       (d) Compliance With Plan.--The local housing management 
     plan submitted by a local housing and management authority 
     (including any amendments to the plan), unless determined 
     under section 108 not to comply with the requirements 
     under section 107, shall be binding upon the Secretary and 
     the local housing and management authority and the 
     authority shall use any grant amounts provided under this 
     title for eligible activities under subsection (a) in 
     accordance with the plan. This subsection may not be 
     construed to preclude changes or amendments to the plan, 
     as authorized under section 108(e) or any actions 
     authorized by this Act to be taken without regard to a 
     local housing management plan.

     SEC. 204. DETERMINATION OF BLOCK GRANT ALLOCATION.

       (a) In General.--For each fiscal year, after reserving 
     amounts under section 111 from the aggregate amount made 
     available for the fiscal year for carrying out this title, 
     the Secretary shall allocate any remaining amounts among 
     eligible local housing and management authorities in 
     accordance with this section, so that the sum of all of the 
     allocations for all eligible authorities is equal to such 
     remaining amount.
       (b) Allocation Amount.--The Secretary shall determine the 
     amount of the allocation for each eligible local housing and 
     management authority, which shall be--
       (1) for any fiscal year beginning after the enactment of a 
     law containing a formula described in subsection (c), the 
     amount determined under such formula; or
       (2) for any fiscal year beginning before the expiration of 
     such period, the sum of--
       (A) the operating allocation determined under subsection 
     (d)(1) for the authority; and
       (B) the capital improvement allocation determined under 
     subsection (d)(2) for the authority.
       (c) Permanent Allocation Formula.--
       (1) Formula.--A formula under this subsection shall provide 
     for allocating amounts available for a fiscal year for block 
     grants under this title for each local housing and management 
     authority. The formula should reward performance and may 
     consider factors that reflect the different characteristics 
     and sizes of local housing and management authorities, the 
     relative needs, revenues, costs, and capital improvements of 
     authorities, and the relative costs to authorities of 
     operating a well-managed authority that meets the performance 
     targets for the authority established in the local housing 
     management plan for the authority.
       (2) Development under negotiated rulemaking procedure.--The 
     formula under this subsection shall be developed according to 
     procedures for issuance of regulations under the negotiated 
     rulemaking procedure under subchapter III of chapter 5 of 
     title 5, United States Code, except that the formula shall 
     not be contained in a regulation.
       (3) Report.--Not later than the expiration of the 18-month 
     period beginning upon the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall submit a report to the Congress containing 
     the proposed formula established pursuant to paragraph (2) 
     that meets the requirements of this subsection.
       (d) Interim Allocation Requirements.--
       (1) Operating allocation.--
       (A) Applicability to 50 percent of appropriated amounts.--
     Of any amounts available for allocation under this subsection 
     for a fiscal year, 50 percent shall be used only to provide 
     amounts for operating allocations under this paragraph for 
     eligible local housing and management authorities.
       (B) Determination.--The operating allocation under this 
     subsection for a local housing and management authority for a 
     fiscal year shall be an amount determined by applying, to the 
     amount to be allocated under this paragraph, the formula used 
     for determining the distribution of operating subsidies for 
     fiscal year 1995 to public housing agencies (as modified 
     under subparagraph (C)) under section 9 of this Act, as in 
     effect before the enactment of this Act.
       (C) Treatment of chronically vacant units.--The Secretary 
     shall revise the formula referred to in subparagraph (B) so 
     that the formula does not provide any amounts, other than 
     utility costs, attributable to any dwelling unit of a local 
     housing and management authority that has been vacant 
     continuously for 6 or more months. A unit shall not be 
     considered vacant for purposes of this paragraph if the unit 
     is unoccupied because of rehabilitation or renovation that is 
     on-schedule.
       (2) Capital improvement allocation.--
       (A) Applicability to 50 percent of appropriated amounts.--
     Of any amounts available for allocation under this subsection 
     for a fiscal year, 50 percent shall be used only to provide 
     amounts for capital improvement allocations under this 
     paragraph for eligible local housing and management 
     authorities.
       (B) Determination.--The capital improvement allocation 
     under this subsection for an eligible local housing and 
     management authority for a fiscal year shall be determined by 
     applying, to the amount to be allocated under this paragraph, 
     the formula used for determining the distribution of 
     modernization assistance for fiscal year 1995 to public 
     housing agencies under section 14 of this Act, as in effect 
     before the enactment of this Act, except that Secretary shall 
     establish a method for taking into consideration allocation 
     of amounts under the comprehensive improvement assistance 
     program.

     SEC. 205. SANCTIONS FOR IMPROPER USE OF AMOUNTS.

       (a) In General.--In addition to any other actions 
     authorized under this title, if the Secretary finds pursuant 
     to an annual financial and performance audit under section 
     432 that a local housing and management authority receiving 
     grant amounts under this title has failed to comply 
     substantially with any provision of this title, the Secretary 
     may--
       (1) terminate payments under this title to the authority;
       (2) withhold from the authority amounts from the total 
     allocation for the authority pursuant to section 204;
       (3) reduce the amount of future grant payments under this 
     title to the authority by an amount equal to the amount of 
     such payments that were not expended in accordance with this 
     title;
       (4) limit the availability of grant amounts provided to the 
     authority under this title to programs, projects, or 
     activities not affected by such failure to comply;
       (5) withhold from the authority amounts allocated for the 
     authority under title III; or
       (6) order other corrective action with respect to the 
     authority.
       (b) Termination of Compliance Action.--If the Secretary 
     takes action under subsection (a) with respect to a local 
     housing and management authority, the Secretary shall--
       (1) in the case of action under subsection (a)(1), resume 
     payments of grant amounts under this title to the authority 
     in the full amount of the total allocation under section 204 
     for the authority at the time that the Secretary first 
     determines that the authority will comply with the provisions 
     of this title;
       (2) in the case of action under paragraph (2), (5), or (6) 
     of subsection (a), make withheld amounts available as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate to ensure that the authority 
     complies with the provisions of this title; or
       (3) in the case of action under subsection (a)(4), release 
     such restrictions at the time that the Secretary first 
     determines that the authority will comply with the provisions 
     of this title.
           Subtitle B--Admissions and Occupancy Requirements

     SEC. 221. LOW-INCOME HOUSING REQUIREMENT.

       (a) Production Assistance.--Any public housing produced 
     using amounts provided under a grant under this title or 
     under the United States Housing Act of 1937 shall be operated 
     as public housing for the 40-year period beginning upon such 
     production.
       (b) Operating Assistance.--No portion of any public housing 
     development operated with amounts from a grant under this 
     title or operating assistance provided under the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 may be disposed of before the 
     expiration of the 10-year period beginning upon the 
     conclusion of the fiscal year for which the grant or such 
     assistance was provided, except as provided in this Act.
       (c) Capital Improvements Assistance.--Amounts may be used 
     for eligible activities under section 203(a)(3) only for the 
     following housing developments:
       (1) Low-income developments.--Amounts may be used for a 
     low-income housing development that--
       (A) is owned by local housing and management authorities;
       (B) is operated as low-income rental housing and produced 
     or operated with assistance provided under a grant under this 
     title; and
       (C) is consistent with the purposes of this title.

     Any development, or portion thereof, referred to in this 
     paragraph for which activities under section 203(a)(3) are 
     conducted using amounts from a grant under this title shall 
     be maintained and used as public housing for the 20-year 
     period beginning upon the receipt of such grant. Any public 
     housing development, or portion thereof, that received the 
     benefit of a grant pursuant to section 14 of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 shall be maintained and used as 
     public housing for the 20-year period beginning upon receipt 
     of such amounts.
       (2) Mixed income developments.--Amounts may be used for 
     mixed-income developments, which shall be a housing 
     development that--
       (A) contains dwelling units that are available for 
     occupancy by families other than low-income families;
       (B) contains a number of dwelling units--
       (i) which units are made available (by master contract or 
     individual lease) for occupancy only by low- and very low-
     income families identified by the local housing and 
     management authority;
       (ii) which number is not less than a reasonable number of 
     units, including related amenities, taking into account the 
     amount of the assistance provided by the authority compared 
     to the total investment (including costs of operation) in the 
     development;
       (iii) which units are subject to the statutory and 
     regulatory requirements of the public housing program, except 
     that the Secretary may grant appropriate waivers to such 
     statutory and regulatory requirements if reductions in 
     funding or other changes to the program make continued 
     application of such requirements impracticable;
       (iv) which units are specially designated as dwelling units 
     under this subparagraph, except

[[Page H4636]]

     the equivalent units in the development may be substituted 
     for designated units during the period the units are subject 
     to the requirements of the public housing program; and
       (v) which units shall be eligible for assistance under this 
     title; and
       (C) is owned by the local housing and management authority, 
     an affiliate controlled by it, or another appropriate entity.

     Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, to 
     facilitate the establishment of socioeconomically mixed 
     communities, a local housing and management authority that 
     uses grant amounts under this title for a mixed income 
     development under this paragraph may, to the extent that 
     income from such a development reduces the amount of grant 
     amounts used for operating or other costs relating to public 
     housing, use such resulting savings to rent privately 
     developed dwelling units in the neighborhood of the mixed 
     income development. Such units shall be made available for 
     occupancy only by low-income families eligible for residency 
     in public housing.

     SEC. 222. FAMILY ELIGIBILITY.

       (a) In General.--Dwelling units in public housing may be 
     rented only to families who are low-income families at the 
     time of their initial occupancy of such units.
       (b) Income Mix Within Developments.--A local housing and 
     management authority may establish and utilize income-mix 
     criteria for the selection of residents for dwelling units in 
     public housing developments that limit admission to a 
     development by selecting applicants having incomes 
     appropriate so that the mix of incomes of families occupying 
     the development is proportional to the income mix in the 
     eligible population of the jurisdiction of the authority, as 
     adjusted to take into consideration the severity of housing 
     need. Any criteria established under this subsection shall be 
     subject to the provisions of subsection (c).
       (c) Income Mix.--Of the public housing dwelling units of a 
     local housing and management authority made available for 
     occupancy after the date of the enactment of this Act, not 
     less than 25 percent shall be occupied by low-income families 
     whose incomes do not exceed 30 percent of the area median 
     income.
       (d) Waiver of Eligibility Requirements for Occupancy by 
     Police Officers.--
       (1) Authority and waiver.--To provide occupancy in public 
     housing dwelling units to police officers and other law 
     enforcement or security personnel (who are not otherwise 
     eligible for residence in public housing) and to increase 
     security for other public housing residents in developments 
     where crime has been a problem, a local housing and 
     management authority may, with respect to such units and 
     subject to paragraph (2)--
       (A) waive--
       (i) the provisions of subsection (a) of this section and 
     section 225(a);
       (ii) the applicability of--

       (I) any preferences for occupancy established under section 
     223;
       (II) the minimum rental amount established pursuant to 
     section 225(b) and any maximum monthly rental amount 
     established pursuant to such section;
       (III) any criteria relating to project income mix 
     established under subsection (b);
       (IV) the income mix requirements under subsection (c); and

       (V) any other occupancy limitations or requirements; and

       (B) establish special rent requirements and other terms and 
     conditions of occupancy.
       (2) Conditions of waiver.--A local housing and management 
     authority may take the actions authorized in paragraph (1) 
     only if authority determines that such actions will increase 
     security in the public housing developments involved and will 
     not result in a significant reduction of units available for 
     residence by low-income families.

     SEC. 223. PREFERENCES FOR OCCUPANCY.

       (a) Authority To Establish.--Any local housing and 
     management authority may establish a system for making 
     dwelling units in public housing available for occupancy that 
     provides preference for such occupancy to families having 
     certain characteristics.
       (b) Content.--Each system of preferences established 
     pursuant to this section shall be based upon local housing 
     needs and priorities, as determined by the local housing and 
     management authority using generally accepted data sources. 
     Each system of preferences established pursuant to this 
     section shall be based upon local housing needs and 
     priorities using generally accepted data sources, including 
     any information obtained pursuant to an opportunity for 
     public comment as provided under section 107(e) or under the 
     requirements applicable to comprehensive housing 
     affordability strategy for the relevant jurisdiction.

     SEC. 224. ADMISSION PROCEDURES.

       (a) Admission Requirements.--A local housing and management 
     authority shall ensure that each family residing in a public 
     housing development owned or administered by the authority is 
     admitted in accordance with the procedures established under 
     this title by the authority and the income limits under 
     section 222.
       (b) Availability of Criminal Records.--
       (1) Availability.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     Federal, State, or local law, upon the request of any local 
     housing and management authority, the National Crime 
     Information Center, police departments, and any other law 
     enforcement entities shall provide information to the 
     authority regarding the criminal convictions of applicants 
     for, or residents of, public housing for the purpose of 
     applicant screening, lease enforcement, and eviction.
       (2) Content.--The information provided under paragraph (1) 
     may not include information regarding any criminal conviction 
     of such an applicant or resident for any act (or failure to 
     act) occurring before the applicant or resident reached 18 
     years of age.
       (3) Confidentiality.--A local housing and management 
     authority receiving information under this subsection may use 
     such information only for the purposes provided in this 
     subsection and such information may not be disclosed to any 
     person who is not an officer or employee of the authority. 
     The Secretary shall, by regulation, establish procedures 
     necessary to ensure that information provided to a local 
     housing and management authority under this subsection is 
     used, and confidentiality of such information is maintained, 
     as required under this subsection.
       (4) Penalty.--Any person who knowingly and willfully 
     requests or obtains any information concerning an applicant 
     for, or resident of, public housing pursuant to the authority 
     under this subsection under false pretenses, or any person 
     who knowingly and willfully discloses any such information in 
     any manner to any individual not entitled under any law to 
     receive it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not 
     more than $5,000. The term ``person'' as used in this 
     paragraph shall include an officer or employee of any local 
     housing and management authority.
       (5) Civil action.--Any applicant for, or resident of, 
     public housing affected by (A) a negligent or knowing 
     disclosure of information referred to in this section about 
     such person by an officer or employee of any local housing 
     and management authority, which disclosure is not authorized 
     by this subsection, or (B) any other negligent or knowing 
     action that is inconsistent with this subsection, may bring a 
     civil action for damages and such other relief as may be 
     appropriate against any officer or employee of any local 
     housing and management authority responsible for such 
     unauthorized action. The district court of the United States 
     in the district in which the affected applicant or resident 
     resides, in which such unauthorized action occurred, or in 
     which the officer or employee alleged to be responsible for 
     any such unauthorized action resides, shall have jurisdiction 
     in such matters. Appropriate relief that may be ordered by 
     such district courts shall include reasonable attorney's fees 
     and other litigation costs.
       (6) Fees.--A local housing and management authority may pay 
     a reasonable fee to obtain information under this subsection.
       (c) Notification of Application Decisions.--A local housing 
     and management authority shall establish procedures designed 
     to provide for notification to an applicant for admission to 
     public housing of the determination with respect to such 
     application, the basis for the determination, and, if the 
     applicant is determined to be eligible for admission, the 
     projected date of occupancy (to the extent such date can 
     reasonably be determined). If an authority denies an 
     applicant admission to public housing, the authority shall 
     notify the applicant that the applicant may request an 
     informal hearing on the denial within a reasonable time of 
     such notification.
       (d) Confidentiality for Victims of Domestic Violence.--A 
     local housing and management authority shall be subject to 
     the restrictions regarding release of information relating to 
     the identity and new residence of any family in public 
     housing that was a victim of domestic violence that are 
     applicable to shelters pursuant to the Family Violence 
     Prevention and Services Act. The authority shall work with 
     the United States Postal Service to establish procedures 
     consistent with the confidentiality provisions in the 
     Violence Against Women Act of 1994.
       (e) Transfers.--A local housing and management authority 
     may apply, to each public housing resident seeking to 
     transfer from one development to another development owned or 
     operated by the authority, the screening procedures 
     applicable at such time to new applicants for public housing.

     SEC. 225. FAMILY RENTAL PAYMENT.

       (a) Rental Contribution by Resident.--A family shall pay as 
     monthly rent for a dwelling unit in public housing the amount 
     that the local housing and management authority determines is 
     appropriate with respect to the family and the unit, which 
     shall be--
       (1) based upon factors determined by the authority, which 
     may include the adjusted income of the resident, type and 
     size of dwelling unit, operating and other expenses of the 
     authority, or any other factors that the authority considers 
     appropriate; and
       (2) an amount that is not less than the minimum monthly 
     rental amount under subsection (b)(1) nor more than any 
     maximum monthly rental amount established for the dwelling 
     unit pursuant to subsection (b)(2).

     In determining the amount of the rent charged for a dwelling 
     unit, a local housing and management authority shall take 
     into consideration the characteristics of the population 
     served by the authority, the goals of the local housing 
     management plan for the authority, and the goals under the 
     comprehensive housing affordability strategy under section 
     105 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act 
     (or any consolidated plan incorporating such strategy) for 
     the applicable jurisdiction.
       (b) Allowable Rents.--
       (1) Minimum rental.--Each local housing and management 
     authority shall establish, for each dwelling unit in public 
     housing owned or administered by the authority, a minimum 
     monthly rental contribution, which--
       (A) may not be less than $25;
       (B) shall include any portion of the cost of utilities for 
     the unit for which the resident is responsible; and
       (C) may be increased annually by the authority, except that 
     no such annual increase may exceed 10 percent of the amount 
     of the minimum monthly rental contribution in effect for the 
     preceding year.

[[Page H4637]]

       (2) Maximum rental.--Each local housing and management 
     authority may establish, for each dwelling unit in public 
     housing owned or administered by the authority, a maximum 
     monthly rental amount, which shall be an amount determined by 
     the authority which is based on, but does not exceed--
       (A) the average, for dwelling units of similar size in 
     public housing developments owned and operated by such 
     authority, of operating expenses attributable to such units;
       (B) the reasonable rental value of the unit; or
       (C) the local market rent for comparable units of similar 
     size.
       (c) Income Reviews.--If a local housing and management 
     authority establishes the amount of rent paid by a family for 
     a public housing dwelling unit based on the adjusted income 
     of the family, the authority shall review the incomes of such 
     family occupying dwelling units in public housing owned or 
     administered by the authority not less than annually.
       (d) Review of Maximum and Minimum Rents.--
       (1) Rental charges.--If the Secretary determines, at any 
     time, that a significant percentage of the public housing 
     dwelling units owned or operated by a large local housing and 
     management authority are occupied by households paying more 
     than 30 percent of their adjusted incomes for rent, the 
     Secretary shall review the maximum and minimum monthly rental 
     amounts established by the authority.
       (2) Population served.--If the Secretary determines, at any 
     time, that less than 40 percent of the public housing 
     dwelling units owned or operated by a large local housing and 
     management authority are occupied by households whose incomes 
     do not exceed 30 percent of the area median income, the 
     Secretary shall review the maximum and minimum monthly rental 
     amounts established by the authority.
       (3) Modification of maximum and minimum rental amounts.--
     If, pursuant to review under this subsection, the Secretary 
     determines that the maximum and minimum rental amounts for a 
     large local housing and management authority are not 
     appropriate to serve the needs of the low-income population 
     of the jurisdiction served by the authority (taking into 
     consideration the financial resources and costs of the 
     authority), as identified in the approved local housing 
     management plan of the authority, the Secretary may require 
     the authority to modify the maximum and minimum monthly 
     rental amounts.
       (4) Large lhma.--For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``large local housing and management authority'' means a 
     local housing and management authority that owns or operates 
     1250 or more public housing dwelling units.
       (e) Phase-In of Rent Contribution Increases.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), for 
     any family residing in a dwelling unit in public housing upon 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, if the monthly 
     contribution for rental of an assisted dwelling unit to be 
     paid by the family upon initial applicability of this title 
     is greater than the amount paid by the family under the 
     provisions of the United States Housing Act of 1937 
     immediately before such applicability, any such resulting 
     increase in rent contribution shall be--
       (A) phased in equally over a period of not less than 3 
     years, if such increase is 30 percent or more of such 
     contribution before initial applicability; and
       (B) limited to not more than 10 percent per year if such 
     increase is more than 10 percent but less than 30 percent of 
     such contribution before initial applicability.
       (2) Exception.--The minimum rent contribution requirement 
     under subsection (b)(1)(A) shall apply to each family 
     described in paragraph (1) of this subsection, 
     notwithstanding such paragraph.

     SEC. 226. LEASE REQUIREMENTS.

       In renting dwelling units in a public housing development, 
     each local housing and management authority shall utilize 
     leases that--
       (1) do not contain unreasonable terms and conditions;
       (2) obligate the local housing and management authority to 
     maintain the development in compliance with the housing 
     quality requirements under section 232;
       (3) require the local housing and management authority to 
     give adequate written notice of termination of the lease, 
     which shall not be less than--
       (A) the period provided under the applicable law of the 
     jurisdiction or 14 days, whichever is less, in the case of 
     nonpayment of rent;
       (B) a reasonable period of time, but not to exceed 14 days, 
     when the health or safety of other residents or local housing 
     and management authority employees is threatened; and
       (C) the period of time provided under the applicable law of 
     the jurisdiction, in any other case;
       (4) require that the local housing and management authority 
     may not terminate the tenancy except for violation of the 
     terms or conditions of the lease, violation of applicable 
     Federal, State, or local law, or for other good cause;
       (5) provide that the local housing and management authority 
     may terminate the tenancy of a public housing resident for 
     any activity, engaged in by a public housing resident, any 
     member of the resident's household, or any guest or other 
     person under the resident's control, that--
       (A) threatens the health or safety of, or right to peaceful 
     enjoyment of the premises by, other residents or employees of 
     the local housing and management authority or other manager 
     of the housing;
       (B) threatens the health or safety of, or right to peaceful 
     enjoyment of their premises by, persons residing in the 
     immediate vicinity of the premises; or
       (C) is criminal activity (including drug-related criminal 
     activity);
       (6) provide that any occupancy in violation of the 
     provisions of section 227(a)(4) shall be cause for 
     termination of tenancy; and
       (7) specify that, with respect to any notice of eviction or 
     termination, notwithstanding any State law, a public housing 
     resident shall be informed of the opportunity, prior to any 
     hearing or trial, to examine any relevant documents, records 
     or regulations directly related to the eviction or 
     termination.

     SEC. 227. DESIGNATED HOUSING FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED 
                   FAMILIES.

       (a) Authority To Provide Designated Housing.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a local housing and management authority for which the 
     information required under subsection (c) is in effect may 
     provide public housing developments (or portions of 
     developments) designated for occupancy by (A) only elderly 
     families, (B) only disabled families, or (C) elderly and 
     disabled families.
       (2) Priority for occupancy.--In determining priority for 
     admission to public housing developments (or portions of 
     developments) that are designated for occupancy as provided 
     in paragraph (1), the local housing and management authority 
     may make units in such developments (or portions) available 
     only to the types of families for whom the development is 
     designated.
       (3) Eligibility of near-elderly families.--If a local 
     housing and management authority determines that there are 
     insufficient numbers of elderly families to fill all the 
     units in a development (or portion of a development) 
     designated under paragraph (1) for occupancy by only elderly 
     families, the authority may provide that near-elderly 
     families may occupy dwelling units in the development (or 
     portion).
       (4) Limitation on occupancy in developments for elderly 
     families.--
       (A) In general.--Subject only to the provisions of 
     subsection (b) and notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a dwelling unit in a development (or portion of a 
     development) that is designated under paragraph (1) for 
     occupancy by only elderly families or by only elderly and 
     disabled families shall not be occupied by any individual who 
     is not an elderly person and--
       (i) who currently illegally uses a controlled substance; or
       (ii) whose history of illegal use of a controlled substance 
     or use of alcohol, or current use of alcohol, provides 
     reasonable cause for the local housing and management 
     authority to believe that the occupancy by such individual 
     may interfere with the health, safety, or right to peaceful 
     enjoyment of the premises by other residents.
       (B) Consideration of rehabilitation.--In determining 
     whether, pursuant to subparagraph (A), to deny occupancy to 
     any individual based on a history of use of a controlled 
     substance or alcohol, a local housing and management 
     authority may consider the factors under section 105(b).
       (b) Standards Regarding Evictions.--
       (1) Limitation.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), any 
     resident who is lawfully residing in a dwelling unit in a 
     development designated for occupancy under subsection (a)(1) 
     may not be evicted or otherwise required to vacate such unit 
     because of the designation of the development (or portion of 
     a development) or because of any action taken by the 
     Secretary or any local housing and management authority to 
     carry out this section.
       (2) Requirement to evict nonelderly tenants in housing 
     designated for elderly families who have current drug or 
     alcohol abuse problems.--The local housing and management 
     authority administering a development (or portion of a 
     development) described in subsection (a)(4)(A) shall evict 
     any individual who occupies a dwelling unit in such a 
     development and who currently illegally uses a controlled 
     substance or whose current use of alcohol provides a 
     reasonable cause for the authority to believe that the 
     occupancy by such individual may interfere with the health, 
     safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by 
     other residents. This paragraph may not be construed to 
     require a local housing and management authority to evict any 
     other individual who occupies the same dwelling unit as the 
     individual required to be evicted.
       (c) Required Inclusions in Local Housing Management Plan.--
       (1) In general.--A local housing and management authority 
     may designate a development (or portion of a development) for 
     occupancy under subsection (a)(1) only if the authority, as 
     part of the authority's local housing management plan--
       (A) establishes that the designation of the development is 
     necessary--
       (i) to achieve the housing goals for the jurisdiction under 
     the comprehensive housing affordability strategy under 
     section 105 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 
     Housing Act (or any consolidated plan incorporating such 
     strategy); and
       (ii) to meet the housing needs of the low-income population 
     jurisdiction; and
       (B) submits a description of--
       (i) the development (or portion of a development) to be 
     designated;
       (ii) the types of residents for which the development is to 
     be designated;
       (iii) any services designed to meet the special needs of 
     residents to be provided to residents of the designated 
     development (or portion);
       (iv) how the design and related facilities (as such term is 
     defined in section 202(d)(8) of the Housing Act of 1959) of 
     the development accommodate the special environmental needs 
     of the intended occupants.
       (2) 5-year effectiveness.--The information required under 
     paragraph (1) shall be effective for purposes of designation 
     of a public housing development (or portion thereof) under 
     this section only for the 5-year period that begins upon

[[Page H4638]]

     notification under section 108(a) of the local housing and 
     management authority that the information complies with the 
     requirements under section 107 and this subsection. A local 
     housing and management authority may extend the effectiveness 
     of the designation and information for an additional 2-year 
     period beginning upon the expiration of such period (or the 
     expiration of any previous extension period under this 
     sentence) by updating such information in the local housing 
     management plan for the authority.
       (3) Treatment of existing plans.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this section, a local housing and management 
     authority shall be considered to have submitted the 
     information required under this subsection if the authority 
     has submitted to the Secretary an application and allocation 
     plan under this section (as in effect before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act) that have not been approved or 
     disapproved before such date of enactment.
       (4) Savings provision.--Any application and allocation plan 
     approved under section 7 of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937 (as in effect before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act) before such date of enactment shall be considered to be 
     information required under this subsection that is in effect 
     for purposes of this section for the 5-year period beginning 
     upon such approval.
       (d) Relocation Assistance.--A local housing and management 
     authority that designates any existing development or 
     building, or portion thereof, for occupancy as provided under 
     subsection (a) shall provide, to each person and family 
     relocated in connection with such designation--
       (1) notice of the designation and relocation, as soon as is 
     practicable for the authority and the person or family;
       (2) comparable housing (including appropriate services and 
     design features), which may include rental assistance under 
     title III, at a rental rate that is comparable to that 
     applicable to the unit from which the person or family has 
     vacated; and
       (3) payment of actual, reasonable moving expenses.
       (e) Inapplicability to Indian Housing.--The provisions of 
     this section shall not apply with respect to low-income 
     housing developed or operated pursuant to a contract between 
     the Secretary and an Indian housing authority.
                         Subtitle C--Management

     SEC. 231. MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES.

       (a) Sound Management.--A local housing and management 
     authority that receives grant amounts under this title shall 
     establish and comply with procedures and practices sufficient 
     to ensure that the public housing developments owned or 
     administered by the authority are operated in a sound manner.
       (b) Management by Other Entities.--Except as otherwise 
     provided under this Act, a local housing and management 
     authority may contract with any other entity to perform any 
     of the management functions for public housing owned or 
     operated by the local housing and management authority.

     SEC. 232. HOUSING QUALITY REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Each local housing and management 
     authority that receives grant amounts under this Act shall 
     maintain its public housing in a condition that complies--
       (1) in the case of public housing located in a jurisdiction 
     which has in effect laws, regulations, standards, or codes 
     regarding habitability of residential dwellings that provide 
     protection to residents of the dwellings that is equal to or 
     greater than the protection provided under the housing 
     quality standards established under subsection (b), with such 
     applicable laws, regulations, standards, or codes; or
       (2) in the case of public housing located in a jurisdiction 
     which does not have in effect laws, regulations, standards, 
     or codes described in subparagraph (A), with the housing 
     quality standards established under subsection (b).
       (b) Federal Housing Quality Standards.--The Secretary shall 
     establish housing quality standards under this subsection 
     that ensure that public housing dwelling units are safe, 
     clean, and healthy. Such standards shall include requirements 
     relating to habitability, including maintenance, health and 
     sanitation factors, condition, and construction of dwellings, 
     and shall, to the greatest extent practicable, be consistent 
     with the standards established under section 328(b). The 
     Secretary shall differentiate between major and minor 
     violations of such standards.
       (c) Determinations.--Each local housing and management 
     authority providing housing assistance shall identify, in the 
     local housing management plan of the authority, whether the 
     authority is utilizing the standard under paragraph (1) or 
     (2) of subsection (a) and, if the authority utilizes the 
     standard under paragraph (1), shall certify in such plan that 
     the applicable State or local laws, regulations, standards, 
     or codes comply with the requirements under such paragraph.
       (d) Annual Inspections.--Each local housing and management 
     authority that owns or operates public housing shall make an 
     annual inspection of each public housing development to 
     determine whether units in the development are maintained in 
     accordance with the requirements under subsection (a). The 
     authority shall submit the results of such inspections to the 
     Secretary and the Inspector General for the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development and such results shall be 
     available to the Housing Foundation and Accreditation Board 
     established under title IV and any auditor conducting an 
     audit under section 432.

     SEC. 233. EMPLOYMENT OF RESIDENTS.

       A local housing and management authority may employ public 
     housing residents in any activities engaged in by the 
     authority. The Secretary shall require local housing and 
     management authorities, in using grant amounts provided under 
     this title, to make their best efforts to enter into 
     agreements with contractors and subcontractors of the 
     authority to provide residents of public housing with 
     employment opportunities, job training, and internships.

     SEC. 234. RESIDENT COUNCILS AND RESIDENT MANAGEMENT 
                   CORPORATIONS.

       (a) Resident Councils.--The residents of a public housing 
     development may establish a resident council for the 
     development for purposes of consideration of issues relating 
     to residents, representation of resident interests, and 
     coordination and consultation with a local housing and 
     management authority. A resident council shall be an 
     organization or association that--
       (1) is nonprofit in character;
       (2) is representative of the residents of the eligible 
     housing;
       (3) adopts written procedures providing for the election of 
     officers on a regular basis; and
       (4) has a democratically elected governing board, which is 
     elected by the residents of the eligible housing.
       (b) Resident Management Corporations.--
       (1) Establishment.--The residents of a public housing 
     development may establish a resident management corporation 
     for the purpose of assuming the responsibility for the 
     management of the development under section 235 or purchasing 
     a development.
       (2) Requirements.--A resident management corporation shall 
     be a corporation that--
       (A) is nonprofit in character;
       (B) is organized under the laws of the State in which the 
     development is located;
       (C) has as its sole voting members the residents of the 
     development; and
       (D) is established by the resident council for the 
     development or, if there is not a resident council, by a 
     majority of the households of the development.

     SEC. 235. MANAGEMENT BY RESIDENT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION.

       (a) Authority.--A local housing and management authority 
     may enter into a contract under this section with a resident 
     management corporation to provide for the management of 
     public housing developments by the corporation.
       (b) Contract.--A contract under this section for management 
     of public housing developments by a resident management 
     corporation shall establish the respective management rights 
     and responsibilities of the corporation and the local housing 
     and management authority. The contract shall be consistent 
     with the requirements of this Act applicable to public 
     housing development and may include specific terms governing 
     management personnel and compensation, access to public 
     housing records, submission of and adherence to budgets, rent 
     collection procedures, resident income verification, resident 
     eligibility determinations, resident eviction, the 
     acquisition of supplies and materials and such other matters 
     as may be appropriate. The contract shall be treated as a 
     contracting out of services.
       (c) Bonding and Insurance.--Before assuming any management 
     responsibility for a public housing development, the resident 
     management corporation shall provide fidelity bonding and 
     insurance, or equivalent protection. Such bonding and 
     insurance, or its equivalent, shall be adequate to protect 
     the Secretary and the local housing and management authority 
     against loss, theft, embezzlement, or fraudulent acts on the 
     part of the resident management corporation or its employees.
       (d) Block Grant Assistance and Income.--A contract under 
     this section shall provide for--
       (1) the local housing and management authority to provide a 
     portion of the block grant assistance under this title to the 
     resident management corporation for purposes of operating the 
     public housing development covered by the contract and 
     performing such other eligible activities with respect to the 
     development as may be provided under the contract;
       (2) the amount of income expected to be derived from the 
     development itself (from sources such as rents and charges);
       (3) the amount of income to be provided to the development 
     from the other sources of income of the local housing and 
     management authority (such as interest income, administrative 
     fees, and rents); and
       (4) any income generated by a resident management 
     corporation of a public housing development that exceeds the 
     income estimated under the contract shall be used for 
     eligible activities under section 203(a).
       (e) Calculation of Total Income.--
       (1) Maintenance of support.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
     amount of assistance provided by a local housing and 
     management authority to a public housing development managed 
     by a resident management corporation may not be reduced 
     during the 3-year period beginning on the date on which the 
     resident management corporation is first established for the 
     development.
       (2) Reductions and increases in support.--If the total 
     income of a local housing and management authority is reduced 
     or increased, the income provided by the local housing and 
     management authority to a public housing development managed 
     by a resident management corporation shall be reduced or 
     increased in proportion to the reduction or increase in the 
     total income of the authority, except that any reduction in 
     block grant amounts under this title to the authority that 
     occurs as a result of fraud, waste, or mismanagement by the 
     authority shall not affect the amount provided to the 
     resident management corporation.

     SEC. 236. TRANSFER OF MANAGEMENT OF CERTAIN HOUSING TO 
                   INDEPENDENT MANAGER AT REQUEST OF RESIDENTS.

       (a) Authority.--The Secretary may transfer the 
     responsibility and authority for management

[[Page H4639]]

     of specified housing (as such term is defined in subsection 
     (h)) from a local housing and management authority to an 
     eligible management entity, in accordance with the 
     requirements of this section, if--
       (1) such housing is owned or operated by a local housing 
     and management authority that is--
       (A) not accredited under section 433 by the Housing 
     Foundation and Accreditation Board; or
       (B) is designated as a troubled authority under section 
     431(a)(2); and
       (2) the Secretary determines that--
       (A) such housing has deferred maintenance, physical 
     deterioration, or obsolescence of major systems and other 
     deficiencies in the physical plant of the project;
       (B) such housing is occupied predominantly by families with 
     children who are in a severe state of distress, characterized 
     by such factors as high rates of unemployment, teenage 
     pregnancy, single-parent households, long-term dependency on 
     public assistance and minimal educational achievement;
       (C) such housing is located in an area such that the 
     housing is subject to recurrent vandalism and criminal 
     activity (including drug-related criminal activity); and
       (D) the residents can demonstrate that the elements of 
     distress for such housing specified in subparagraphs (A) 
     through (C) can be remedied by an entity that has a 
     demonstrated capacity to manage, with reasonable expenses for 
     modernization.

     Such a transfer may be made only as provided in this section, 
     pursuant to the approval by the Secretary of a request for 
     the transfer made by a majority vote of the residents for the 
     specified housing, after consultation with the local housing 
     and management authority for the specified housing.
       (b) Block Grant Assistance.--Pursuant to a contract under 
     subsection (c), the Secretary shall require the local housing 
     and management authority for specified housing to provide to 
     the manager for the housing, from any block grant amounts 
     under this title for the authority, fair and reasonable 
     amounts for operating costs for the housing. The amount made 
     available under this subsection to a manager shall be 
     determined by the Secretary based on the share for the 
     specified housing of the total block grant amounts for the 
     local housing and management authority transferring the 
     housing, taking into consideration the operating and capital 
     improvement needs of the specified housing, the operating and 
     capital improvement needs of the remaining public housing 
     units managed by the local housing and management authority, 
     and the local housing management plan of such authority.
       (c) Contract Between Secretary and Manager.--
       (1) Requirements.--Pursuant to the approval of a request 
     under this section for transfer of the management of 
     specified housing, the Secretary shall enter into a contract 
     with the eligible management entity.
       (2) Terms.--A contract under this subsection shall contain 
     provisions establishing the rights and responsibilities of 
     the manager with respect to the specified housing and the 
     Secretary and shall be consistent with the requirements of 
     this Act applicable to public housing developments.
       (d) Compliance With Local Housing Management Plan.--A 
     manager of specified housing under this section shall comply 
     with the approved local housing management plan applicable to 
     the housing and shall submit such information to the local 
     housing and management authority from which management was 
     transferred as may be necessary for such authority to prepare 
     and update its local housing management plan.
       (e) Demolition and Disposition by Manager.--A manager under 
     this section may demolish or dispose of specified housing 
     only if, and in the manner, provided for in the local housing 
     management plan for the authority transferring management of 
     the housing.
       (f) Limitation on LHMA Liability.--A local housing and 
     management authority that is not a manager for specified 
     housing shall not be liable for any act or failure to act by 
     a manager or resident council for the specified housing.
       (g) Treatment of Manager.--To the extent not inconsistent 
     with this section and to the extent the Secretary determines 
     not inconsistent with the purposes of this Act, a manager of 
     specified housing under this section shall be considered to 
     be a local housing and management authority for purposes of 
     this title.
       (h) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       (1) Eligible management entity.--The term ``eligible 
     management entity'' means, with respect to any public housing 
     development, any of the following entities that has been 
     accredited in accordance with section 433:
       (A) Nonprofit organization.--A public or private nonprofit 
     organization, which shall--
       (i) include a resident management corporation or resident 
     management organization and, as determined by the Secretary, 
     a public or private nonprofit organization sponsored by the 
     local housing and management authority that owns the 
     development; and
       (ii) not include the local housing and management authority 
     that owns the development.
       (B) For-profit entity.--A for-profit entity that has 
     demonstrated experience in providing low-income housing.
       (C) State or local government.--A State or local 
     government, including an agency or instrumentality thereof.
       (D) Local housing and management authority.--A local 
     housing and management authority (other than the local 
     housing and management authority that owns the development).

     The term does not include a resident council.
       (2) Manager.--The term ``manager'' means any eligible 
     management entity that has entered into a contract under this 
     section with the Secretary for the management of specified 
     housing.
       (3) Nonprofit.--The term ``nonprofit'' means, with respect 
     to an organization, association, corporation, or other 
     entity, that no part of the net earnings of the entity inures 
     to the benefit of any member, founder, contributor, or 
     individual.
       (4) Private nonprofit organization.--The term ``private 
     nonprofit organization'' means any private organization 
     (including a State or locally chartered organization) that--
       (A) is incorporated under State or local law;
       (B) is nonprofit in character;
       (C) complies with standards of financial accountability 
     acceptable to the Secretary; and
       (D) has among its purposes significant activities related 
     to the provision of decent housing that is affordable to low-
     income families.
       (5) Local housing and management authority.--The term 
     ``local housing and management authority'' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 103(a), except that it does not 
     include Indian housing authorities.
       (6) Public nonprofit organization.--The term ``public 
     nonprofit organization'' means any public entity that is 
     nonprofit in character.
       (7) Specified housing.--The term ``specified housing'' 
     means a public housing development or developments, or a 
     portion of a development or developments, for which the 
     transfer of management is requested under this section. 
     The term includes one or more contiguous buildings and an 
     area of contiguous row houses, but in the case of a single 
     building, the building shall be sufficiently separable 
     from the remainder of the development of which it is part 
     to make transfer of the management of the building 
     feasible for purposes of this section.

     SEC. 237. RESIDENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to encourage 
     increased resident management of public housing developments, 
     as a means of improving existing living conditions in public 
     housing developments, by providing increased flexibility for 
     public housing developments that are managed by residents 
     by--
       (1) permitting the retention, and use for certain purposes, 
     of any revenues exceeding operating and project costs; and
       (2) providing funding, from amounts otherwise available, 
     for technical assistance to promote formation and development 
     of resident management entities.

     For purposes of this section, the term ``public housing 
     development'' includes one or more contiguous buildings or an 
     area of contiguous row houses the elected resident councils 
     of which approve the establishment of a resident management 
     corporation and otherwise meet the requirements of this 
     section.
       (b) Program Requirements.--
       (1) Resident council.--As a condition of entering into a 
     resident opportunity program, the elected resident council of 
     a public housing development shall approve the establishment 
     of a resident management corporation that complies with the 
     requirements of section 234(b)(2). When such approval is made 
     by the elected resident council of a building or row house 
     area, the resident opportunity program shall not interfere 
     with the rights of other families residing in the development 
     or harm the efficient operation of the development. The 
     resident management corporation and the resident council may 
     be the same organization, if the organization complies with 
     the requirements applicable to both the corporation and 
     council.
       (2) Public housing management specialist.--The resident 
     council of a public housing development, in cooperation with 
     the local housing and management authority, shall select a 
     qualified public housing management specialist to assist in 
     determining the feasibility of, and to help establish, a 
     resident management corporation and to provide training and 
     other duties agreed to in the daily operations of the 
     development.
       (3) Management responsibilities.--A resident management 
     corporation that qualifies under this section, and that 
     supplies insurance and bonding or equivalent protection 
     sufficient to the Secretary and the local housing and 
     management authority, shall enter into a contract with the 
     authority establishing the respective management rights and 
     responsibilities of the corporation and the authority. The 
     contract shall be treated as a contracting out of services 
     and shall be subject to the requirements under section 234 
     for such contracts.
       (4) Annual audit.--The books and records of a resident 
     management corporation operating a public housing development 
     shall be audited annually by a certified public accountant. A 
     written report of each such audit shall be forwarded to the 
     local housing and management authority and the Secretary.
       (c) Comprehensive Improvement Assistance.--Public housing 
     developments managed by resident management corporations may 
     be provided with modernization assistance from grant amounts 
     under this title for purposes of renovating such 
     developments. If such renovation activities (including the 
     planning and architectural design of the rehabilitation) are 
     administered by a resident management corporation, the local 
     housing and management authority involved may not retain, for 
     any administrative or other reason, any portion of the 
     assistance provided pursuant to this subsection unless 
     otherwise provided by contract.
       (d) Waiver of Federal Requirements.--
       (1) Waiver of regulatory requirements.--Upon the request of 
     any resident management corporation and local housing and 
     management authority, and after notice and an opportunity to 
     comment is afforded to the affected residents, the Secretary 
     may waive (for both the resident management corporation and 
     the local housing

[[Page H4640]]

     and management authority) any requirement established by the 
     Secretary (and not specified in any statute) that the 
     Secretary determines to unnecessarily increase the costs or 
     restrict the income of a public housing development.
       (2) Waiver to permit employment.--Upon the request of any 
     resident management corporation, the Secretary may, subject 
     to applicable collective bargaining agreements, permit 
     residents of such development to volunteer a portion of their 
     labor.
       (3) Exceptions.--The Secretary may not waive under this 
     subsection any requirement with respect to income eligibility 
     for purposes of section 222, rental payments under section 
     225, tenant or applicant protections, employee organizing 
     rights, or rights of employees under collective bargaining 
     agreements.
       (e) Operating Assistance and Development Income.--
       (1) Calculation of operating subsidy.--Subject only to the 
     exception provided in paragraph (3), the amount grant amounts 
     received under this title by a local housing and management 
     authority used for operating costs under section 203(a)(2) 
     that is allocated to a public housing development managed by 
     a resident management corporation shall not be less than per 
     unit monthly amount of such assistance used by the local 
     housing and management authority in the previous year, as 
     determined on an individual development basis.
       (2) Contract requirements.--Any contract for management of 
     a public housing development entered into by a local housing 
     and management authority and a resident management 
     corporation shall specify the amount of income expected to be 
     derived from the development itself (from sources such as 
     rents and charges) and the amount of income funds to be 
     provided to the development from the other sources of income 
     of the authority (such as operating assistance under section 
     203(a), interest income, administrative fees, and rents).
       (f) Resident Management Technical Assistance and 
     Training.--
       (1) Financial assistance.--To the extent budget authority 
     is available under this title, the Secretary shall provide 
     financial assistance to resident management corporations or 
     resident councils that obtain, by contract or otherwise, 
     technical assistance for the development of resident 
     management entities, including the formation of such 
     entities, the development of the management capability of 
     newly formed or existing entities, the identification of the 
     social support needs of residents of public housing 
     developments, and the securing of such support.
       (2) Limitation on assistance.--The financial assistance 
     provided under this subsection with respect to any public 
     housing development may not exceed $100,000.
       (3) Prohibition.--A resident management corporation or 
     resident council may not, before the award to the corporation 
     or council of a grant amount under this subsection, enter 
     into any contract or other agreement with any entity to 
     provide such entity with amounts from the grant for providing 
     technical assistance or carrying out other activities 
     eligible for assistance with amounts under this subsection. 
     Any such agreement entered into in violation of this 
     paragraph shall be void and unenforceable.
       (4) Funding.--Of any amounts made available for financial 
     assistance under this title, the Secretary may use to carry 
     out this subsection $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1996.
       (5) Limitation regarding assistance under hope grant 
     program.--The Secretary may not provide financial assistance 
     under this subsection to any resident management corporation 
     or resident council with respect to which assistance for the 
     development or formation of such entity is provided under 
     title III of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in 
     effect before the date of the enactment of this Act).
       (g) Assessment and Report by Secretary.--Not later than 3 
     years after the date of the enactment of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1996, the Secretary shall--
       (1) conduct an evaluation and assessment of resident 
     management, and particularly of the effect of resident 
     management on living conditions in public housing; and
       (2) submit to the Congress a report setting forth the 
     findings of the Secretary as a result of the evaluation and 
     assessment and including any recommendations the Secretary 
     determines to be appropriate.
       (h) Applicability.--Any management contract between a local 
     housing and management authority and a resident management 
     corporation that is entered into after the date of the 
     enactment of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance 
     Amendments Act of 1988 shall be subject to this section and 
     any regulations issued to carry out this section.
                       Subtitle D--Homeownership

     SEC. 251. RESIDENT HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--A local housing and management authority 
     may carry out a homeownership program in accordance with this 
     section and the local housing management plan of the 
     authority to make public housing dwelling units, public 
     housing developments, and other housing projects available 
     for purchase by low-income families.
       (b) Participating Units.--A program under this section may 
     cover any existing public housing dwelling units or projects, 
     and may include other dwelling units and housing owned, 
     operated, or assisted, or otherwise acquired for use under 
     such program, by the local housing and management authority.
       (c) Eligible Purchasers.--
       (1) Low-income requirement.--Only low-income families 
     assisted by a local housing and management authority, other 
     low-income families, and entities formed to facilitate such 
     sales shall be eligible to purchase housing under a 
     homeownership program under this section.
       (2) Other requirements.--A local housing and management 
     authority may establish other requirements or limitations for 
     families to purchase housing under a homeownership program 
     under this section, including requirements or limitations 
     regarding employment or participation in employment 
     counseling or training activities, criminal activity, 
     participation in homeownership counseling programs, evidence 
     of regular income, and other requirements.
       (d) Financing and Assistance.--A homeownership program 
     under this section may provide financing for acquisition of 
     housing by families purchasing under the program or by the 
     local housing and management authority for sale under this 
     program in any manner considered appropriate by the authority 
     (including sale to a resident management corporation).
       (e) Downpayment Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--Each family purchasing housing under a 
     homeownership program under this section shall be required to 
     provide from its own resources a downpayment in connection 
     with any loan for acquisition of the housing, in an amount 
     determined by the local housing and management authority. 
     Except as provided in paragraph (2), the authority shall 
     permit the family to use grant amounts, gifts from relatives, 
     contributions from private sources, and similar amounts as 
     downpayment amounts in such purchase,
       (2) Direct family contribution.--In purchasing housing 
     pursuant to this section, each family shall contribute an 
     amount of the downpayment, from resources of the family other 
     than grants, gifts, contributions, or other similar amounts 
     referred to in paragraph (1), that is not less than 1 percent 
     of the purchase price.
       (f) Ownership Interests.--A homeownership program under 
     this section may provide for sale to the purchasing family of 
     any ownership interest that the local housing and management 
     authority considers appropriate under the program, including 
     ownership in fee simple, a condominium interest, an interest 
     in a limited dividend cooperative, a shared appreciation 
     interest with a local housing and management authority 
     providing financing.
       (g) Resale.--
       (1) Authority and limitation.--A homeownership program 
     under this section shall permit the resale of a dwelling unit 
     purchased under the program by an eligible family, but shall 
     provide such limitations on resale as the authority considers 
     appropriate for the authority to recapture--
       (A) from any economic gain derived from any such resale 
     occurring during the 5-year period beginning upon purchase of 
     the dwelling unit by the eligible family, a portion of the 
     amount of any financial assistance provided under the program 
     by the authority to the eligible family; and
       (B) after the expiration of such 5-year period, only such 
     amounts as are equivalent to the assistance provided under 
     this section by the authority to the purchaser.
       (2) Considerations.--The limitations referred to in 
     paragraph (1) may provide for consideration of the aggregate 
     amount of assistance provided under the program to the 
     family, the contribution to equity provided by the purchasing 
     eligible family, the period of time elapsed between purchase 
     under the homeownership program and resale, the reason for 
     resale, any improvements to the property made by the eligible 
     family, any appreciation in the value of the property, and 
     any other factors that the authority considers appropriate.
       (h) Inapplicability of Disposition Requirements.--The 
     provisions of section 261 shall not apply to disposition of 
     public housing dwelling units under a homeownership program 
     under this section, except that any dwelling units sold under 
     such a program shall be treated as public housing dwelling 
     units for purposes of subsections (e) and (f) of section 261.
Subtitle E--Disposition, Demolition, and Revitalization of Developments

     SEC. 261. REQUIREMENTS FOR DEMOLITION AND DISPOSITION OF 
                   DEVELOPMENTS.

       (a) Authority and Flexibility.--A local housing and 
     management authority may demolish, dispose of, or demolish 
     and dispose of nonviable or nonmarketable public housing 
     developments of the authority in accordance with this 
     section.
       (b) Local Housing Management Plan Requirement.--A local 
     housing and management authority may take any action to 
     demolish or dispose of a public housing development (or a 
     portion of a development) only if such demolition or 
     disposition complies with the provisions of this section 
     and is in accordance with the local housing management 
     plan for the authority.
       (c) Purpose of Demolition or Disposition.--A local housing 
     and management authority may demolish or dispose of a public 
     housing development (or portion of a development) only if the 
     authority provides sufficient evidence to the Secretary 
     that--
       (1) the development (or portion thereof) is severely 
     distressed or obsolete;
       (2) the development (or portion thereof) is in a location 
     making it unsuitable for housing purposes;
       (3) the development (or portion thereof) has design or 
     construction deficiencies that make cost-effective 
     rehabilitation infeasible;
       (4) assuming that reasonable rehabilitation and management 
     intervention for the development has been completed and paid 
     for, the anticipated revenue that would be derived from 
     charging market-based rents for units in the development (or 
     portion thereof) would not cover the anticipated operating 
     costs and replacement reserves of the development (or 
     portion) at full occupancy and the development (or portion) 
     would constitute a substantial burden on the resources of the 
     local housing and management authority;

[[Page H4641]]

       (5) retention of the development (or portion thereof) is 
     not in the best interests of the residents of the local 
     housing and management authority because--
       (A) developmental changes in the area surrounding the 
     development adversely affect the health or safety of the 
     residents or the feasible operation of the development by the 
     local housing and management authority;
       (B) demolition or disposition will allow the acquisition, 
     development, or rehabilitation of other properties which will 
     be more efficiently or effectively operated as low-income 
     housing; or
       (C) other factors exist that the authority determines are 
     consistent with the best interests of the residents and the 
     authority and not inconsistent with other provisions of this 
     Act;
       (6) in the case only of demolition or disposition of a 
     portion of a development, the demolition or disposition will 
     help to ensure the remaining useful life of the remainder of 
     the development; or
       (7) in the case only of property other than dwelling 
     units--
       (A) the property is excess to the needs of a development; 
     or
       (B) the demolition or disposition is incidental to, or does 
     not interfere with, continued operation of a development.
       (d) Consultation.--A local housing and management authority 
     may demolish or dispose of a public housing development (or 
     portion of a development) only if the authority notifies and 
     confers regarding the demolition or disposition with--
       (1) the residents of the development (or portion); and
       (2) appropriate local government officials.
       (e) Use of Proceeds.--Any net proceeds from the disposition 
     of a public housing development (or portion of a development) 
     shall be used for--
       (1) housing assistance for low-income families that is 
     consistent with the low-income housing needs of the 
     community, through acquisition, development, or 
     rehabilitation of, or homeownership programs for, other low-
     income housing or the provision of choice-based assistance 
     under title III for such families;
       (2) supportive services relating to job training or child 
     care for residents of a development or developments; or
       (3) leveraging amounts for securing commercial enterprises, 
     on-site in public housing developments of the local housing 
     and management authority, appropriate to serve the needs of 
     the residents.
       (f) Relocation.--A local housing and management authority 
     that demolishes or disposes of a public housing development 
     (or portion of a development thereof) shall ensure that--
       (1) each family that is a resident of the development (or 
     portion) that is demolished or disposed of is relocated to 
     other safe, clean, healthy, and affordable housing, which is, 
     to the maximum extent practicable, housing of the family's 
     choice or is provided with choice-based assistance under 
     title III;
       (2) the local housing and management authority does not 
     take any action to dispose of any unit until any resident to 
     be displaced is relocated in accordance with paragraph (1); 
     and
       (3) each resident family to be displaced is paid relocation 
     expenses, and the rent to be paid initially by the resident 
     following relocation does not exceed the amount permitted 
     under section 225(a).
       (g) Right of First Refusal for Resident Organizations and 
     Resident Management Corporations.--
       (1) In general.--A local housing and management authority 
     may not dispose of a public housing development (or portion 
     of a development) unless the authority has, before such 
     disposition, offered to sell the property, as provided in 
     this subsection, to each resident organization and resident 
     management corporation operating at the development for 
     continued use as low-income housing, and no such organization 
     or corporation purchases the property pursuant to such offer. 
     A resident organization may act, for purposes of this 
     subsection, through an entity formed to facilitate 
     homeownership under subtitle D.
       (2) Timing.--Disposition of a development (or portion 
     thereof) under this section may not take place--
       (A) before the expiration of the period during which any 
     such organization or corporation may notify the authority of 
     interest in purchasing the property, which shall be the 30-
     day period beginning on the date that the authority first 
     provides notice of the proposed disposition of the property 
     to such resident organizations and resident management 
     corporations;
       (B) if an organization or corporation submits notice of 
     interest in accordance with subparagraph (A), before the 
     expiration of the period during which such organization or 
     corporation may obtain a commitment for financing to purchase 
     the property, which shall be the 60-day period beginning upon 
     the submission to the authority of the notice of interest; or
       (C) if, during the period under subparagraph (B), an 
     organization or corporation obtains such financing commitment 
     and makes a bona fide offer to the authority to purchase the 
     property for a price equal to or exceeding the applicable 
     offer price under paragraph (3).

     The authority shall sell the property pursuant to any 
     purchase offer described in subparagraph (C).
       (3) Terms of offer.--An offer by a local housing and 
     management authority to sell a property in accordance with 
     this subsection shall involve a purchase price that reflects 
     the market value of the property, the reason for the sale, 
     the impact of the sale on the surrounding community, and any 
     other factors that the authority considers appropriate.
       (h) Information for Local Housing Management Plan.--A local 
     housing and management authority may demolish or dispose of a 
     public housing development (or portion thereof) only if it 
     includes in the applicable local housing management plan 
     information sufficient to describe--
       (1) the housing to be demolished or disposed of;
       (2) the purpose of the demolition or disposition under 
     subsection (c) and why the demolition or disposition complies 
     with the requirements under subsection (c);
       (3) how the consultations required under subsection (d) 
     will be made;
       (4) how the net proceeds of the disposition will be used in 
     accordance with subsection (e);
       (5) how the authority will relocate residents, if 
     necessary, as required under subsection (f); and
       (6) that the authority has offered the property for 
     acquisition by resident organizations and resident management 
     corporations in accordance with subsection (g).
       (i) Site and Neighborhood Standards Exemption.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a local housing 
     and management authority may provide for development of 
     public housing dwelling units on the same site or in the same 
     neighborhood as any dwelling units demolished, pursuant to a 
     plan under this section, but only if such development 
     provides for significantly fewer dwelling units.
       (j) Treatment of Replacement Units.--In connection with any 
     demolition or disposition of public housing under this 
     section, a local housing and management authority may provide 
     for other housing assistance for low-income families that is 
     consistent with the low-income housing needs of the 
     community, including--
       (1) the provision of choice-based assistance under title 
     III; and
       (2) the development, acquisition, or lease by the authority 
     of dwelling units, which dwelling units shall--
       (A) be eligible to receive assistance with grant amounts 
     provided under this title; and
       (B) be made available for occupancy, operated, and managed 
     in the manner required for public housing, and subject to the 
     other requirements applicable to public housing dwelling 
     units.
       (k) Permissible Relocation Without Plan.--If a local 
     housing and management authority determines that public 
     housing dwelling units are not clean, safe, and healthy or 
     cannot be maintained cost-effectively in a clean, safe, and 
     healthy condition, the local housing and management authority 
     may relocate residents of such dwelling units before the 
     submission of a local housing management plan providing for 
     demolition or disposition of such units.
       (l) Consolidation of Occupancy Within or Among Buildings.--
     Nothing in this section may be construed to prevent a local 
     housing and management authority from consolidating occupancy 
     within or among buildings of a public housing development, or 
     among developments, or with other housing for the purpose of 
     improving living conditions of, or providing more efficient 
     services to, residents.
       (m) De Minimis Exception to Demolition Requirements.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, in any 
     5-year period a local housing and management authority may 
     demolish not more than the lesser of 5 dwelling units or 5 
     percent of the total dwelling units owned and operated by the 
     local housing and management authority, without providing for 
     such demolition in a local housing management plan, but only 
     if the space occupied by the demolished unit is used for 
     meeting the service or other needs of public housing 
     residents or the demolished unit was beyond repair.

     SEC. 262. DEMOLITION, SITE REVITALIZATION, REPLACEMENT 
                   HOUSING, AND CHOICE-BASED ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR 
                   DEVELOPMENTS.

       (a) Purposes.--The purpose of this section is to provide 
     assistance to local housing and management authorities for 
     the purposes of--
       (1) reducing the density and improving the living 
     environment for public housing residents of severely 
     distressed public housing developments through the demolition 
     of obsolete public housing developments (or portions 
     thereof);
       (2) revitalizing sites (including remaining public housing 
     dwelling units) on which such public housing developments are 
     located and contributing to the improvement of the 
     surrounding neighborhood; and
       (3) providing housing that will avoid or decrease the 
     concentration of very low-income families; and
       (4) providing choice-based assistance in accordance with 
     title III for the purpose of providing replacement housing 
     and assisting residents to be displaced by the demolition.
       (b) Grant Authority.--The Secretary may make grants 
     available to local housing and management authorities as 
     provided in this section.
       (c) Contribution Requirement.--The Secretary may not make 
     any grant under this section to any applicant unless the 
     applicant certifies to the Secretary that the applicant will 
     supplement the amount of assistance provided under this 
     section with an amount of funds from sources other than this 
     section equal to not less than 5 percent of the amount 
     provided under this section, including amounts from other 
     Federal sources, any State or local government sources, any 
     private contributions, and the value of any in-kind services 
     or administrative costs provided.
       (d) Eligible Activities.--Grants under this section may be 
     used for activities to carry out revitalization programs for 
     severely distressed public housing, including--
       (1) architectural and engineering work, including the 
     redesign, reconstruction, or redevelopment of a severely 
     distressed public housing development, including the site on 
     which the development is located;
       (2) the demolition, sale, or lease of the site, in whole or 
     in part;

[[Page H4642]]

       (3) covering the administrative costs of the applicant, 
     which may not exceed such portion of the assistance provided 
     under this section as the Secretary may prescribe;
       (4) payment of reasonable legal fees;
       (5) providing reasonable moving expenses for residents 
     displaced as a result of the revitalization of the 
     development;
       (6) economic development activities that promote the 
     economic self-sufficiency of residents under the 
     revitalization program;
       (7) necessary management improvements;
       (8) leveraging other resources, including additional 
     housing resources, retail supportive services, jobs, and 
     other economic development uses on or near the development 
     that will benefit future residents of the site;
       (9) replacement housing and housing assistance under title 
     III;
       (10) transitional security activities; and
       (11) necessary supportive services, except that not more 
     than 10 percent of the amount of any grant may be used for 
     activities under this paragraph.
       (e) Application and Selection.--
       (1) Application.--An application for a grant under this 
     section shall contain such information and shall be submitted 
     at such time and in accordance with such procedures, as the 
     Secretary shall prescribe.
       (2) Selection criteria.--The Secretary shall establish 
     selection criteria for the award of grants under this 
     section, which shall include--
       (A) the relationship of the grant to the local housing 
     management plan for the local housing and management 
     authority and how the grant will result in a revitalized site 
     that will enhance the neighborhood in which the development 
     is located;
       (B) the capability and record of the applicant local 
     housing and management authority, or any alternative 
     management agency for the authority, for managing large-scale 
     redevelopment or modernization projects, meeting construction 
     timetables, and obligating amounts in a timely manner;
       (C) the extent to which the local housing and management 
     authority could undertake such activities without a grant 
     under this section;
       (D) the extent of involvement of residents, State and local 
     governments, private service providers, financing entities, 
     and developers, in the development of a revitalization 
     program for the development;
       (E) the amount of funds and other resources to be leveraged 
     by the grant; and
       (F) whether the applicant local housing and management 
     authority has been awarded a planning grant under section 
     24(c) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect 
     immediately before the date of the enactment of this Act).
       (f) Cost Limits.--Subject to the provisions of this 
     section, the Secretary--
       (1) shall establish cost limits on eligible activities 
     under this section sufficient to provide for effective 
     revitalization programs; and
       (2) may establish other cost limits on eligible activities 
     under this section.
       (h) Demolition and Replacement.--Any severely distressed 
     public housing demolished or disposed of pursuant to a 
     revitalization plan and any public housing produced in lieu 
     of such severely distressed housing, shall be subject to the 
     provisions of section 261.
       (i) Administration by Other Entities.--The Secretary may 
     require a grantee under this section to make arrangements 
     satisfactory to the Secretary for use of an entity other than 
     the local housing and management authority to carry out 
     activities assisted under the revitalization plan, if the 
     Secretary determines that such action will help to effectuate 
     the purposes of this section.
       (j) Withdrawal of Funding.--If a grantee under this section 
     does not proceed expeditiously, in the determination of the 
     Secretary, the Secretary shall withdraw any grant amounts 
     under this section that have not been obligated by the local 
     housing and management authority. The Secretary shall 
     redistribute any withdrawn amounts to one or more local 
     housing and management authorities eligible for assistance 
     under this section.
       (k) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       (1) Applicant.--The term ``applicant'' means--
       (A) any local housing and management authority that is not 
     designated as troubled pursuant to section 431(a)(2)(D);
       (B) any local housing and management authority or private 
     housing management agent selected, or receiver appointed 
     pursuant, to section 438; and
       (C) any local housing and management authority that is 
     designated as troubled pursuant to section 431(a)(2)(D) 
     that--
       (i) is so designated principally for reasons that will not 
     affect the capacity of the authority to carry out a 
     revitalization program;
       (ii) is making substantial progress toward eliminating the 
     deficiencies of the authority; or
       (iii) is otherwise determined by the Secretary to be 
     capable of carrying out a revitalization program.
       (2) Private nonprofit corporation.--The term ``private 
     nonprofit organization'' means any private nonprofit 
     organization (including a State or locally chartered 
     nonprofit organization) that--
       (A) is incorporated under State or local law;
       (B) has no part of its net earnings inuring to the benefit 
     of any member, founder, contributor, or individual;
       (C) complies with standards of financial accountability 
     acceptable to the Secretary; and
       (D) has among its purposes significant activities related 
     to the provision of decent housing that is affordable to very 
     low-income families.
       (3) Severely distressed public housing.--The term 
     ``severely distressed public housing'' means a public housing 
     development (or building in a development)--
       (A) that requires major redesign, reconstruction or 
     redevelopment, or partial or total demolition, to correct 
     serious deficiencies in the original design (including 
     inappropriately high population density), deferred 
     maintenance, physical deterioration or obsolescence of major 
     systems and other deficiencies in the physical plant of the 
     development;
       (B) is a significant contributing factor to the physical 
     decline of and disinvestment by public and private entities 
     in the surrounding neighborhood;
       (C)(i) is occupied predominantly by families who are very 
     low-income families with children, are unemployed, and 
     dependent on various forms of public assistance; and
       (ii) has high rates of vandalism and criminal activity 
     (including drug-related criminal activity) in comparison to 
     other housing in the area;
       (D) cannot be revitalized through assistance under other 
     programs, such as the public housing block grant program 
     under this title, or the programs under sections 9 and 14 of 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before 
     the date of the enactment of this Act), because of cost 
     constraints and inadequacy of available amounts; and
       (E) in the case of individual buildings, the building is, 
     in the Secretary's determination, sufficiently separable from 
     the remainder of the development of which the building is 
     part to make use of the building feasible for purposes of 
     this section.
       (4) Supportive services.--The term ``supportive services'' 
     includes all activities that will promote upward mobility, 
     self-sufficiency, and improved quality of life for the 
     residents of the public housing development involved, 
     including literacy training, job training, day care, and 
     economic development activities.
       (l) Annual Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the 
     Congress an annual report setting forth--
       (1) the number, type, and cost of public housing units 
     revitalized pursuant to this section;
       (2) the status of developments identified as severely 
     distressed public housing;
       (3) the amount and type of financial assistance provided 
     under and in conjunction with this section; and
       (4) the recommendations of the Secretary for statutory and 
     regulatory improvements to the program established by this 
     section.
       (m) Funding.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated for grants under this section such sums as 
     may be necessary for fiscal year 1996.
       (2) Technical assistance.--Of the amount appropriated 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) for any fiscal year, the Secretary 
     may use not more than 0.50 percent for technical assistance. 
     Such assistance may be provided directly or indirectly by 
     grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements, and shall 
     include training, and the cost of necessary travel for 
     participants in such training, by or to officials of the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development, of local housing 
     and management authorities, and of residents.
       (n) Sunset.--No assistance may be provided under this 
     section after September 30, 1996.
                     Subtitle F--General Provisions

     SEC. 271. CONVERSION TO BLOCK GRANT ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Savings Provisions.--Any amounts made available to a 
     public housing agency for assistance for public housing 
     pursuant to the United States Housing Act of 1937 (or any 
     other provision of law relating to assistance for public 
     housing) under an appropriation for fiscal year 1996 or any 
     previous fiscal year shall be subject to the provisions of 
     such Act as in effect before the enactment of this Act, 
     notwithstanding the repeals made by this Act, except to the 
     extent the Secretary provides otherwise to provide for the 
     conversion of public housing and public housing assistance to 
     the system provided under this Act.
       (b) Modifications.--Notwithstanding any provision of this 
     Act or any annual contributions contract or other agreement 
     entered into by the Secretary and a public housing agency 
     pursuant to the provisions of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 (as in effect before the enactment of this Act), the 
     Secretary and the agency may by mutual consent amend, 
     supersede, modify any such agreement as appropriate to 
     provide for assistance under this title, except that the 
     Secretary and the agency may not consent to any such 
     amendment, supersession, or modification that substantially 
     alters any outstanding obligations requiring continued 
     maintenance of the low-income character of any public housing 
     development and any such amendment, supersession, or 
     modification shall not be given effect.

     SEC. 272. PAYMENT OF NON-FEDERAL SHARE.

       Rental or use-value of buildings or facilities paid for, in 
     whole or in part, from production, modernization, or 
     operation costs financed under this title may be used as the 
     non-Federal share required in connection with activities 
     undertaken under Federal grant-in-aid programs which provide 
     social, educational, employment, and other services to the 
     residents in a project assisted under this title.

     SEC. 273. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title, the following definitions shall 
     apply:
       (1) Acquisition cost.--The term ``acquisition cost'' means 
     the amount prudently expended by a local housing and 
     management authority in acquiring property for a public 
     housing development.
       (2) Development.--The terms ``public housing development'' 
     and ``development'' mean--
       (A) public housing; and
       (B) the improvement of any such housing.
       (3) Eligible local housing and management authority.--The 
     term ``eligible local housing

[[Page H4643]]

     and management authority'' means, with respect to a fiscal 
     year, a local housing and management authority that is 
     eligible under section 202(b) for a grant under this title.
       (4) Group home and independent living facility.--The terms 
     ``group home'' and ``independent living facility'' have the 
     meanings given such terms in section 811(k) of the Cranston-
     Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act.
       (5) Operation.--The term ``operation'' means any or all 
     undertakings appropriate for management, operation, services, 
     maintenance, security (including the cost of security 
     personnel), or financing in connection with a public housing 
     development, including the financing of resident programs and 
     services.
       (6) Production.--The term ``production'' means any or all 
     undertakings necessary for planning, land acquisition, 
     financing, demolition, construction, or equipment, in 
     connection with the construction, acquisition, or 
     rehabilitation of a property for use as a public housing 
     development, including activity in connection with a public 
     housing development that is confined to the reconstruction, 
     remodeling, or repair of existing buildings.
       (7) Production cost.--The term ``production cost'' means 
     the costs incurred by a local housing and management 
     authority for production of public housing and the necessary 
     financing for production (including the payment of carrying 
     charges and acquisition costs).
       (8) Resident council.--The term ``resident council'' means 
     an organization or association that meets the requirements of 
     section 234(a).
       (9) Resident management corporation.--The term ``resident 
     management corporation'' means a corporation that meets the 
     requirements of section 234(b).
       (10) Resident program.--The term ``resident programs and 
     services'' means programs and services for families residing 
     in public housing developments. Such term includes (A) the 
     development and maintenance of resident organizations which 
     participate in the management of public housing developments, 
     (B) the training of residents to manage and operate the 
     public housing development and the utilization of their 
     services in management and operation of the development, (C) 
     counseling on household management, housekeeping, budgeting, 
     money management, homeownership issues, child care, and 
     similar matters, (D) advice regarding resources for job 
     training and placement, education, welfare, health, and other 
     community services, (E) services that are directly related to 
     meeting resident needs and providing a wholesome living 
     environment; and (F) referral to appropriate agencies in the 
     community when necessary for the provision of such services. 
     To the maximum extent available and appropriate, existing 
     public and private agencies in the community shall be used 
     for the provision of such services.

     SEC. 274. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR BLOCK GRANTS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated, for block grants 
     under this title, $6,300,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.

     SEC. 275. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR OPERATION SAFE 
                   HOME.

       There is authorized to be appropriated, for assistance for 
     relocating residents of public housing under the operation 
     safe home program of the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development (including assistance for costs of relocation and 
     housing assistance under title III), $700,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. The Secretary 
     shall provide that families who are residing in public 
     housing, who have been subject to domestic violence, and for 
     whom provision of assistance is likely to reduce or eliminate 
     the threat of subsequent violence to the members of the 
     family, shall be eligible for assistance under the operation 
     safe home program.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to title II?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word to try to make certain that we understand what our business is 
going to be.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to try to enter into a colloquy with the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], my friend and chairman about our 
plans for the rest of the evening, and I hope for our plans involving 
tomorrow's business.
  I wonder if the gentleman might enlighten us as to what his plans for 
the subcommittee are for the rest of the evening.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I 
would be happy to enter into a discussion with my friend, the 
distinguished ranking member, Mr. Kennedy.
  I will be happy to make the unanimous consent request.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on all amendments 
to the bill, and any amendment thereto, be limited to 10 minutes, 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, except 
that: the modified amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Frank of 
Massachusetts be considered under the terms of the previous order of 
the committee, amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts 
be debatable for 1 hour, amendments Nos. 33 and 34 offered by Ms. 
Velazquez of New York may be considered en bloc and debatable for 20 
minutes, amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Roemer of Indiana be debatable 
for 20 minutes, and amendment No. 9 by Mr. Hayworth of Arizona be 
debatable for 20 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to 
object, I appreciate the efforts that the gentleman from New York and 
the staff of the committee have made to try to get this bill under 
control for tomorrow's business. I think we have an agreement in terms 
of the committee's work that everyone that has offered or intends to 
offer an amendment can work within.
  I would also like to put on the Record the minority's understanding 
of the floor schedule for testimony. That the House intends to meet at 
10 a.m. That the House will take up the housing bill until completion 
and that the House will vote on the product liability veto override. 
Then the House will take up the rule on general debate only on the 
adoption bill and the House may take up the science rule only, and that 
will be it in terms of the order of business for the day.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, it 
is my understanding that the schedule will follow closely, or 
approximately, what the gentleman has simply set forth.
  It looks like those issues will be resolved and I think we will 
probably only get to the rule vote on the science bill, tomorrow so we 
are hoping to wrap up. And I also want to thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for working cooperatively to ensure that we have a 
rational debate process for the remained of this bill before us right 
now.

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, although I am a little 
suspect about approximatelys and hopefuls, but anyway, I appreciate 
working with the gentleman from New York and look forward to a shorter 
day tomorrow.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hayworth) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hobson, 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. 
2406), to repeal the United States Housing Act of 1937, deregulate the 
public housing program and the program for rental housing assistance 
for low-income families, and increase community control over such 
programs, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________