[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 64 (Thursday, May 9, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H4662-H4753]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNITED STATES HOUSING ACT OF 1996
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution
426 and rule XXIII, the Chair decalres the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 2406.
{time} 1109
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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, May
8, 1996, title II was open for amendment at any point.
Pursuant to the order of the Committee of that day, debate on each
amendment, and any amendment thereto, shall be limited to 10 minutes,
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, with
the following exceptions:
Amendment No. 7, as modified, by the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Frank] for 60 minutes; amendment No. 17 by the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] for 60 minutes; amendments Nos. 33 and 34
by the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez] which may be
considered en bloc for 20 minutes; amendment No. 22 by the gentleman
from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] for 20 minutes; and amendment No. 8 by the
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] for 20 minutes.
Are there any amendments to title II?
amendment no. 7, as modified, offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the unanimous-
consent request of last night, I offer an amendment, as modified.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment, as modified.
The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:
Amendment No. 7, as modified, offered by Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts:
Section 225(a) of the bill (as amended by the manager's
amendment), strike paragraph (2) of such section and insert
the following new paragraph:
``(2) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subsection, the amount paid by a family for monthly rent
for a dwelling unit in public housing may not exceed 30
percent of the family's adjusted monthly income.''.
Section 322(a) of the bill (as amended by the manager's
amendment), strike paragraph (2) of such section and insert
the following new paragraph:
``(2) Limitation.--Except as provided in paragraph (3) and
notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, 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.''.
Section 352 of the bill (as amended by the manager's
amendment), strike subsection (a) and insert the following
new subsection:
``(a) Units Having Gross Rent Exceeding Payment Standard.--
In the case of an assisted family renting 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 location in the market area in which such
assisted dwelling unit is located, the amount of the monthly
assistance payment for housing assistance under this title on
behalf of such family shall be the amount by which such
payment standard exceeds the lesser of (1) the resident
contribution determined in accordance with section 322(a)(1),
or (2) 30 percent of the family's adjusted monthly income.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of Wednesday,
May 8, 1996, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and a Member
opposed will each control 30 minutes.
Does the gentleman from New York wish to control the time in
opposition?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I will be controlling the time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez], one of the coauthors of the
amendment.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly urge my colleagues to
[[Page H4663]]
support the amendment that I am offering today with my friends and
colleagues, Mr. Frank and Mr. Hinchey.
This amendment is truly very simple.
And yet, as simple as this amendment is, I strongly believe that its
approval is critical to Americans who depend on public housing.
If this Congress has any interest in preserving its commitment to
providing decent, affordable housing to Americans who need it most,
passage of this amendment is a critical step.
Our amendment places a cap of 30 percent of total income as the
amount a public housing resident or family can spend on rent.
In addition, our amendment allows local housing authorities the
flexibility to allow residents to pay less than 30 percent of their
income for rent.
And this flexibility is critical. Because it gives local housing
authorities a greater ability to reach a goal that is important to all
of us who care about public housing.
The ability to encourage residents of mixed incomes to live in public
housing and not create a disincentive to earning more money.
But without this amendment, we do nothing more than create a
situation where people who need housing most will not be able to afford
it.
Under the current language of the bill, families in public housing
will have no protection against financially debilitating rent
increases.
Let me be clear.
This bill does not raise the income cap to 35 percent. It doesn't
push the cap all the way up to 40 percent. It doesn't take the extreme
step of allowing the cap to skyrocket to 50 percent of your income.
This bill eliminates the cap.
And that is little different from eliminating our commitment to
public housing.
We cannot pretend in this House to care about providing quality
housing to Americans if we are completely willing to disregard whether
that housing is affordable.
Affordability is the heart of America's commitment to public housing.
Unless the Frank-Gutierrez amendment is passed, that heart is cut
out. And we abandon our commitment to providing quality public housing
that the people who need it most can afford.
Now, some of my colleagues might simply say, ``what rent increase?
There is nothing in this bill that requires local housing authorities
to raise the rent of public housing residents.''
Don't be fooled by that argument. This bill allows local housing
authorities to charge whatever they feel is necessary to stay within
their budgets. And what has this Congress done to the budgets of
housing authorities?
Well, we have just cut the operating subsidies by $100 million. By
$100 million.
Let me recap. We have taken away $100 million--$100 million that was
essential to keeping rents affordable. And now my colleagues suggest
that we should tell them that the sky is the limit on rent increases.
I do not think it takes a detective to uncover where the extra money
is coming from.
It is going to come from the people who can least afford it.
I urge my colleagues do not force this economic hardship on Americans
who rely on public housing. Paying 30 percent of your income on rent is
hardly a giveaway, hardly a free ride.
I strongly believe that 30 percent is a fair and reasonable
contribution of a family's income.
Thirty percent is logical; in fact it basically follows the
guidelines that lenders use in deciding how much a family can afford to
spend on their mortgage.
Most lenders don't want families to spend more than 28 percent of
their income on their mortgage. 28 percent--for people who can afford
to own their home. Yet, incredibly, this bill proposes no cap at all
for people who can barely afford to make ends meet.
A fundamental goal of public housing is that it gives residents an
opportunity to live in safety and dignity--and ease their financial
burdens.
If we ask those very people to pay 32, 35, 40 percent of their income
just to meet their housing expenses, the government is not easing the
burden of public housing residents--it is imposing a burden on public
housing residents.
Instead of helping to light a path toward a better future, we are
setting hurdles in the way.
Let's be clear. We are talking about a population that will be
affected by even a slight increase in out-of-pocket expenses for
housing.
Quite simply, most of the people who will be facing a rent affected
by this increase do not have the money to pay for their increase.
We are talking about Americans with very, very modest incomes.
How modest?
The average annual income of public housing tenants is $6,400--
$6,400. And this bill suggests that they somehow have the ability to
pay more for rent.
They do not. And yet we have created a bill that will give them very
few alternatives.
They will have some alternatives.
Move to worse, substandard, dangerous housing. Or have no housing at
all.
My colleagues who support this bill are right about one thing--public
housing residents deserve better than they are receiving now.
They deserve a commitment to safer, better quality housing.
Congress has not been very good about keeping that commitment. But
they also deserve to have decent housing they can afford.
This Congress should honor that commitment as well.
We can honor that commitment by passing this amendment and protecting
the economic security of public housing residents.
I hope my colleagues will say yes to that vital commitment.
{time} 1115
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let us begin by talking about what this amendment is
not about. It is not about protecting seniors, because they are
protected in the bill. It is not about protecting the disabled, because
they are also protected in the manager's amendment. It is not about
protecting the poorest of the poor, because they too are protected
precisely the same way that my friends from the other side of the aisle
are arguing need to be protected.
What we are talking about is whether we will keep an amendment, a
provision of the law, that has proven to be a job killer, a work
incentive, whether we are going to continue on the path of creating
warehousing for the poor.
The gentleman from Illinois lives in a city where State Street
exists, a public housing development 4.5 straight miles of 19-story
buildings, 99 percent unemployment, universal despair.
We are talking about creating an environment where people begin to
have hope, where there is mixed income, where there is role models,
where people can talk to somebody next door who has a job, who may know
about another job available.
We are talking about transforming people, not warehousing people. The
Brooke amendment has had the effect of warehousing people. It has led
to a disastrous mix in terms of income. It has led to a huge
disincentive to work.
If you do not believe me, Mr. Chairman, listen to some of the people
who are doing this hands on, the public housing authorities themselves.
The National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials says,
``The Brooke amendment, which limits the amount of rent a resident pays
to 30 percent, is a disincentive to work, encourages fraud, and offers
local housing authorities with little flexibility to reward working
households.''
This is an antiwork provision. It actually raises rent on those
people who decide to work.
The Public Housing Authorities Directors Association says, ``To base
rents solely on income has proved disastrous over recent years.''
Disastrous.
These are the people with hands-on experience. What we are talking
about is thinking out of the box. What we are talking about is letting
housing authorities fix rents just like the rest of the world operates.
If the housing authority says this particular unit is $50, is $75, a
resident knows that if they work overtime, if they get a better job, if
they earn more money, they can keep that money. They are not going to
be subject to a one-third tax the minute they go to work, which is
exactly what this Frank-Gutierrez
[[Page H4664]]
amendment does. It is precisely what it does.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The amendment that I have offered puts an
upper limit of 30 percent, but does not at all require any increase.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, but that is
exactly what is going to happen. The amendment that the gentleman from
Massachusetts is offering, which suggests that housing authorities can
set rents at up to 30 percent of income, will create not just a floor,
but a ceiling. Housing authorities will continue to set rent based on
income. That is the problem.
If we had to pay 30 percent of our income in rent, I guarantee you,
this place would not be voting for it. But because we do not have to
live in those places and we do not have to live with this, it becomes
very easy rhetorically to say we are so incompassionate, because we are
protecting the poor. That is nonsense. It is not serving the very
people that these people purport to represent.
Let me just say again, Mr. Chairman, that this has been a work
disincentive. We are in fact protecting almost 90 percent of the
current population in public housing. We are trying to create an
environment where people can transition to work, where work ethic is
rewarded, where there is mixed income, there is hope, there is
opportunity. The Frank amendment would destroy all those things. It
would move us back into the past. It would reclaim the situation that
we have in State Street of 4.5 miles, where there is 99 percent
unemployment for 10,000 Americans. We cannot condemn 10,000 Americans
to another 30 years of failed policy.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
The gentleman has shown how indefensible his amendment is by
absolutely misrepresenting its substance. The amendment I have goes
back to the pre-1981 days. It sets a 30-percent limit. It does not
require an increase.
The gentleman's argument, be clear, here is what he says: If you tell
housing authorities that they can charge no more than 30 percent, but
less if they want to, they will charge more than if you tell them they
can charge 40 or 50 percent.
His amendment says the housing authorities can raise the rents on
these working people to whatever level you want. Our amendment says set
whatever level you want, but in no case above 30 percent. In fact,
there is one group of people who get the 30 percent protection, and
that is people on welfare under his version.
So he singles out working poor people in housing and he protects them
by taking the cap off their rent. There is absolutely nothing in the
amendment we are offering that requires, encourages, pushes, urges, an
increase in the rent. All we say is a cap.
When a 30-percent limit on what you can charge someone is
transmogrified into raising the rents, as opposed to allowing them to
go higher, you see how logically indefensible the gentleman considers
the amendment to be.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Blute].
Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to
restore the so-called Brooke amendment. Before I discuss the merits of
this amendments, let me first address the bill as a whole and the
exemplary job my good friend from New York, Mr. Lazio, and his staff
have done on this legislation.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development is perhaps the one
segment of the Federal Government that needs reform the most. Most of
the current housing policy is based on the U.S. Housing Act of 1937,
reflecting the needs of a different era.
Chairman Lazio was faced with a very significant challenge at the
outset of this Congress, and I commend him for his perseverance and
commitment to bring sanity to public housing policy. He literally has
traveled around our great country searching for answers to the problems
of housing our citizens.
However, Mr. Chairman, I do have one area of very serious concern
with this legislation. While I believe housing authorities ought to be
given more flexibility in operating their developments, I do believe
the need still exists for the Federal Government to provide certainty
when it comes to the level of rent.
In 1969, in response to an increasing inability of public housing
tenants to afford their rent, the former distinguished Republican
Senator Ed Brooke of Massachusetts remembered advice given him by his
father. This advice was that an individual should not pay more than 25
or 30 percent of their income on housing.
This is still a widely accepted rule of thumb today, and most of us
live by this rule. I have visited housing units all over my district,
places like Great Brook Valley in Worcester, MA. I have spoken with
people like Wanda Alvarado, a single parent struggling to raise her two
children and to improve their standard of living. They and many others
are concerned that repeal of the Brooke amendment or alteration of the
Brooke amendment would lead to significant rises in their rent.
Therefore, I rise in support of the amendment that would restore the
Brooke amendment. This amendment would simply ensure that low-income
families would not pay any more than 30 percent of their income on
their rent. These families are some of the poorest in America, and I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Baker], a member of the
Committee on Banking and financial services and a very active member of
the Subcommittee on Housing.
Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time, and certainly want to commend him for leadership in
this most difficult issue and all issues relating to reform of housing
in America.
But this is not just a debate about the Brooke amendment. It is not
just a debate about the necessity to repeal the one-for-one requirement
or to do something with the admissions or eviction processes, or just
about education and job skills, necessities in public housing, or even
just public housing. It It extends to what is known as the section 8
based project assistance. It is all of this, and more, regrettably.
We must look not just at the specific issue before us this morning in
the Brooke amendment. We must look at the effects, the consequences, of
the aggregate of these legislative remedies, which although well-
intentioned, have led us down a long, dark road.
It is unfortunate, but all we can conclude when we look at the
inventory of housing provided by our Nation today to the working poor
of America, you can only reach one conclusion. It is sad, but the U.S.
Government is the world's largest slum landlord. We must change that.
How can this be?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has a photograph
next to him that I believe is in his neck of the woods. Is this the
situation the gentleman is referring to?
Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, only one
among many. But this is the answer to how can this be. When one drives
just a short distance from my home, in a bus, goes down to the Desire
Street Housing Project, built in the 1950's, now on a Superfund site,
surrounded on all sides, with one way in and out over a railroad track,
1,800 units now occupied by 400 individuals, not aggregated one locale,
but spread out throughout 1,8000 units, unprotected. The employees do
not have two-way communication. If something happens, as it did one
week before I went when a 15-year-old child was killed on the doorstep
of his unit over rival drugs wars, over sales territory, I went
upstairs and talked to the 80-year-old lady who lived in that building
by herself and said, ``Ma'am, is there anything I can do to help you?''
She did not know who I was, nor did she care. She said, ``Come with
me a minute.'' Her unit was well kept. It was the only one in 16 units
in that building. It was not just rundown, depreciated, and worn out.
There were no walls, there were no floors. There were
[[Page H4665]]
dogs and cats running through the bottom area.
She walked up those steps every night by herself, locked herself in
the room, and she said, ``There is one thing I would like you to do for
me, if you might.'' And she took me into the restroom and showed me the
large gap in the wall above the shower stall.
She said, ``At night when I try to take a bath, the roaches come down
the wall. It bothers me just a bit.'' How would you feel if that was
your grandmother?
Now, here is the real problem. If that were just the only issue, if
it was just the fact there was not a sufficient amount of money in the
bank to solve this problem. Desire has, the Housing Authority of New
Orleans, this morning has $200 million in their account to spend for
renovation.
I called the GAO. I said, ``Look, guys, tell me what is going on. I
am really worried about this, because not only is it a waste of
taxpayer money, look at the conditions in which these people have to
exist.''
I got this back, dated May 1996. I know it is a little old, but we
will use it anyway. When I flipped through the pages, there is a
summary of the history. Secretary Cisneros wrote Leon Panetta a letter
2 years ago saying, ``Mr. Panetta, we have to do something about this
circumstance. It is dismal. It is not fit for human habitation.'' This
report dated May 1996 says the circumstances today are unfit for human
habitation.
I have a letter from employees. I have a letter from occupants,
saying ``Please, get us out of these circumstances. It has got to come
to an end.''
What effect does the Brooke amendment have on this circumstance? What
effect does one-for-one have on this circumstance? Concentration
issues. The Desire Street Housing Project is an example. Ninety percent
of the occupants are single, poor, women with children, without
education.
{time} 1130
Now, if we are going to do something about the problems, we have got
to turn that around. We have got to have those kids in an environment
where they see dads going to work and where there are children playing
in the yard. We have to turn this around.
It is not just a question of the poorly run disasters like Desire in
New Orleans. And, by the way, I intend to ask the Secretary of HUD to
seize control and take it away from the city and given those people a
chance for real hope and opportunity, because we can do it.
There is more vacant housing in New Orleans than there are people on
the waiting lists if you bulldozed Desire. That is incredible to me. By
the way, when I first got involved in this they were going to spend
$71,000 per unit to renovate on this Superfund site. The most recent
plan, after I objected, calls for them to spend $130,000 per unit. I am
really doing a good job. Mr. Chairman, we have got to get a grip.
What about the well-run public housing. I called Baton Rouge. I said,
``Guys, what is going on?'' We had a big debate about the number of
people on the boards that govern public housing. I said, ``Tell me how
you run it.'' They have seven members, two are residents. Tell me who
the other bad guys are that are making the terrible public policy.
Well, we have a realtor. I am sure that is the problem. We have a
doctor from Southern University. A former Secretary of Health and Human
Resources is on the board. We have a volunteer coordinator at a public
hospital. We have a Methodist minister. He has got to be the one that
is driving these poor people into these poor conditions.
I said, ``How much do they make to serve on the public housing boards
and do all of this damage to the poor people of America?'' Nothing. No
reimbursement, no per diem, no travel. It is 100 percent volunteer.
These people are performing a public service to try to help the poor of
Baton Rouge.
Mr. Chairman, these people have asked for the ability to govern their
housing authorities. Take off the Brooke amendment. Help us govern and
help people who want to help themselves. Let us get a population mix in
public housing that reflects what is going on in America. Let us give
these people something more than decent housing. Let us give them some
hope; the belief that they can be a part of America and not be locked
up in a multistory, 1,800-unit complex on top of a Superfund site with
nothing but drug dealers at their front door. It is ridiculous. It has
got to change.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, that was a very interesting speech; I just do not know
what amendment it was supposed to be relevant to since it obviously
does not affect ours.
Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana,
although he would not yield to me.
Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I regret that. If I had had
more time, I would have.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the
gentleman had 6 minutes. Who is he kidding?
Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue
to yield, I was talking about the amendment of the gentleman from
Massachusetts, and the results of it and others in the concentration of
poor people.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we just
got it. The gentleman was talking about ``it and others.'' The
gentleman was talking about things unrelated. The only relevance of the
Brooke amendment to his story was that poor woman that he was talking
about under the Brooke amendment, that if they wanted to they could
raise her rent. That is how the gentleman gives hope, raising their
rent.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms.
Velazquez].
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today amazed by how far the
Republican majority will go to keep hard-working Americans down.
Instead of being the first rung on the ladder out of poverty, this
housing bill kicks the ladder away. By repealing the Brooke amendment,
the already difficult lives of the extremely poor will become a
nightmare. Adequate housing must remain affordable for everyone.
In New York City alone, 560,000 housing authority tenants will face
higher rents or eviction if Brooke is eliminated. There is not going to
be mixed income people living in public housing. There will be families
making $40,000 living in public housing and poor people will be thrown
into the streets.
This is a price they simply cannot afford to pay. Faced with higher
rents, families will have to scrimp for even their most basic
necessities. How much more are we going to bleed out of our poor?
The United States already has the impressive distinction of having
the highest poverty rate of the industrialized world. Elimination of
rent caps coupled with funding cuts to housing and a 25-percent cut to
homeless shelters will force waiting lists for park benches to
skyrocket.
Mr. Chairman, I say to my Republican colleagues, you should be
ashamed of yourself. Stop trying to balance the budget on the backs of
the Americans least able to shoulder that burden. Think of the message
you are sending.
Mr. Chairman, clearly, the majority cares more about the haves than
the have-nots. Instead of investing in the neediest Americans, they
give a $7 billion increase to the Department of Defense; they give
hefty tax breaks to wealthy corporations and contributors that dwarf
our spending to house the poor; and they deny an increase in the
minimum Federal wage for working Americans.
Today confirms that the Contract With America was not a contract with
all Americans, only the privileged few. I urge my colleagues to support
the Frank amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he May
consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].
(Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Frank
amendment.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
[[Page H4666]]
Mr. Chairman, I am just sick and tired of people calling compassion
State Street, which has been tolerated for the last 30 years by the
last majority. It was OK to warehouse people and keep people
unemployed, and it is OK to make sure we cut off the commerce and make
sure they do not have access to jobs or access to good education. That
is compassion.
But give people a chance to get a job and get a decent education and
get income mix, and we lack compassion and we are extreme?
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maine [Mr.
Longley].
(Mr. LONGLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Lazio], chairman of the subcommittee. The gentleman has
done an exceptional job in trying to articulate the need for change in
the area of public housing.
I have to confess that we are asked to be expert on any number of
subjects that are frankly far beyond our ability to do so, but I have
been attempting in the last year to visit many of the public housing
projects in my district. I visited projects in Portland, Sanford, and
Augusta. I have talked to the director of the State Public Housing
Authority and I visited a project that they have sponsored. I talked to
trustees in south Portland and I have also talked with the director of
the Portland Public Housing Authority.
The message that I hear over and over and over again is the need for
change in Washington. Particularly, I spoke a year ago with the
director of the Public Housing Authority in Sanford. He said, ``If you
would just give us some flexibility, we can manage these projects more
efficiently, we can do a better job, and we can do it at less cost.''
Mr. Chairman, I happened to get a letter yesterday from the director
of the Portland Housing Authority, Mr. Peter Howe. I want to point out
that he said,
H.R. 2406 contains, much-needed regulatory relief, that is,
repeal of Federal preferences, the one-for-one replacement
rule, and the take-one, take-all provision. The provisions
contained in this legislation provide local housing
authorities with the type of administrative relief and
authority necessary to operate these programs in tenuous
funding environments.
Mr. Chairman, it goes on to say--
I also encourage you to support compromise language that
calls for targeting 30 percent of all units for those below
30 percent of median income. This provision will assure that
affordable housing units will be available to the poorest
members of our community.
I would just say this to the House this morning: Again, we cannot
pretend to be experts on everything, and I question the extent to which
we have the ability to do that. But I do know that when I talk to my
local housing authority officers and officials and visit the projects,
talk to the people who are residents, that the people in the local
level have the ability to manage these projects, and I have confidence
that they are moving in the right direction and that they can
be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to their residents and
the future viability of their projects.
Mr. Chairman, I insert for the Record the following correspondence:
Portland Housing Authority
Portland, ME, May 8, 1996.
Hon. Jim Longley, Jr.,
Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Longley: On behalf of the Portland Housing
Authority, I want to encourage you to support passage of H.R.
2406, the United States Housing Act of 1995. H.R. 2406
contains provisions that are needed to ensure the continued
success of the nation's public and assisted housing programs.
Passage of H.R. 2406 will allow the House and Senate to
conference their respective versions of public housing reform
legislation.
H.R. 2406 provides local housing agencies (LHAs) with much
needed regulatory relief, i.e., repeal of federal
preferences, the one-for-one replacement rule, and the take-
one, take all provision. The provisions contained in this
legislation provide LHAs with the type of administrative
relief and authority necessary to operate these programs in a
tenuous funding environment.
I also encourage you to support compromise language to
retain the Brooke Amendment for those below 30 percent of
median income. This will ensure that the poorest members of
our community will not suffer excessive rent burdens. I also
encourage you to support compromise language that calls for
targeting 30 percent of all units for those below 30 percent
of median income. This provision will assure that affordable
housing units will be available to the poorest members of our
community.
If I can be of any assistance to you, please feel free to
call me at (207) 773-4753.
Sincerely,
Peter A. Howe,
Executive Director.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn], a member of the committee.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment.
The Republicans like to moan about us calling them extremists. Well,
they are and this is a classic example.
Mr. Chairman, they take a bill that has many laudable points and then
they ruin it because they repeal the Brooke amendment which was
designed to cap the rents that are paid by some of the poorest people
in this country, people who make $6,400 a year. That is extreme.
The Brooke amendment simply reflects the standards of the industry,
the banking industry, the real estate industry, the financial services
industry which says that people should only pay a reasonable portion of
their income, about 30 percent, for housing.
If we do not have the Brooke amendment, what we do is create a cycle
of poverty because poor people then have to choose between medicine and
rent; between paying bills and rent; between car repairs and rent. The
first emergency that happens, they fall further behind. That is the
cycle of poverty that is created in the language in this bill.
My Republican colleagues recognize this is a problem because they
keep the Brooke amendment for current residents, disabled people, and
for seniors. If it is good enough for the disabled and seniors, why not
new tenants? We need to keep the Brooke amendment.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 15
seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I now it is part of the Democratic strategy to try and
label, use words. That substitutes for analysis in terms of this. But
let me tell my colleagues what is extreme, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, what is extreme is allowing people to be concentrated
in poverty and not allowing them a chance to get out. What is extreme
is a housing authority like in New Orleans with a score 27 out of a
possible score of 100, and still receiving taxpayer dollars. Or DC at
33; or Philadelphia at 35; Chicago, 45; Atlanta, 49; Pittsburgh, 47;
even Boston, 62.
Mr. Chairman, I would say if our children came home with scores like
that, we would make sure they changed schools or went and did their
homework. Neither one of them is happening right now.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have tried to
compliment the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community
Opportunity for many of the changes that the gentleman has incorporated
into this bill that in fact will allow the Secretary to deal with some
of those housing problems.
But, Mr. Chairman, that has nothing to do with what the Brooke
amendment does. The Brooke amendment simply caps the rents at 30
percent. As the gentleman knows, he protects all of these very poor. He
protects the elderly and the disabled. The only people the gentleman is
going to be pushing out of public housing are working poor.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen], although this may be a
Democratic strategy.
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, housing is a key part of the American
dream. For some this means owning their own home, and that's why we
must keep the tax deduction for mortgage-interest. For others it means
renting an apartment at market rates. And for others it means living in
subsidized housing. For those people the Brooke amendment is essential.
As a Republican from Massachusetts, I am proud to support this
amendment, which upholds the strong tradition of housing fairness
established by a great
[[Page H4667]]
Massachusetts Republican, Senator Ed Brooke.
I applaud the chairman of the Housing Subcommittee for crafting a
bill that skillfully reinvents the Federal Government's approach to
housing policy. But I find no reason to alter the Brooke amendment as
part of this reinvention.
In 1969, Ed Brooke proposed his amendment in response to increasingly
unaffordable rents charged by public housing authorities struggling to
meet expenses. Unfortunately, not much has changed since then. We still
need this valuable safety net for families living in public housing.
The Brooke amendment is plain and simple. It says that families in
public housing will not pay more than 30 percent of their income in
rent. Last week, I met with Senator Brooke and he explained that his
amendment was based on a common-sense rule-of-thumb his father told him
when he was young man. Brooke's father said that if he was paying more
than 25 percent of his income in rent, he should find another place to
live. Unfortunately, for most families in public housing the only
alternative is homelessness.
Last year, the Federal Government spent $2.9 billion on public
housing agencies. This amount pales in comparison to the $58.3 billion
value of the mortgage-interest deduction.
Critics claim that the Brooke amendment discourages work, but this
issue is easily addressed without repeal. Repeal of the Brooke
amendment would force many people out of the only quality home they
have access to.
The Brooke amendment was authored by a Republican Senator and signed
into law by a Republican president. It would be disappointing for this
Republican Congress to dismantle such a commonsense policy.
Mr. Chairman, I submit the following for the Record:
[From the Boston Globe, May 8, 1996]
Save the Brooke Amendment
(By Edward W. Brooke)
As a young man starting out on my own, my father taught me
that if I was paying more than 25 percent of my income on
rent, I was paying more than I could afford and should find
another place to live. It was sound advice then, and it is
sound advice today.
Too much spent on housing leaves a person juggling to pay
for other essentials, robbing Peter to pay Paul, with no
ability to save for the future.
Twenty-seven years ago as a Republican US senator from
Massachusetts, I introduced the ``Brooke Amendment'' to keep
rents affordable for low-income families, elders, veterans
and disabled people living in public housing. Then, as now,
public housing authorities faced increasing operating
expenses and, in order to cover costs, were charging tenants
higher and higher rents--in some cases upwards of 50 percent
of their meager incomes.
Congress had two choices: fill the operating-cost gap or
turn people out of their homes. We voted to fill the gap and
passed legislation, signed into law by President Nixon in
1969, to cap rents at 25 percent of income. In 1981, this cap
was raised to 30 percent.
Now, US Rep. Rick Lazio, a Republican from New York and
chairman of the housing subcommittee, is expected to bring to
the full House a bill that calls for the elimination of the
Brooke Amendment. It will put 2.7 million households in
danger of losing the rent-cap safeguard in their federally
subsidized housing. The rationale for repealing the Brooke
Amendment is that, to fill the current revenue gap, housing
authorities need to attract working people who can pay higher
rents into public housing. The 30-percent cap is seen as a
disincentive for residents to obtain work.
The purpose of public housing is to provide decent,
affordable housing for low-income families, and the Brooke
Amendment has ensured that for almost 30 years.
However, a specious argument has caught hold in Congress
that people who have jobs and more choices will choose to
move into public housing developments where apartments are
cramped, safety is often a problem and one is branded with
the stigma of living in a poor development. Do members of
Congress really believe that people who have the means to
live elsewhere will move into public housing projects? The
reality is that people live in public housing because they
have no other choice; they are poor and have no other place
to go.
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 and allow
people to save and get back on their feet. 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. We must keep rents in
public housing at a fair and reasonable percentage of income,
a percentage that recognizes that people need money to pay
for other basic expenses as well.
Some advocates of the repeal cite the rate of crime in
public housing. The fact is that less than 15 percent of
public housing tenants are involved in crime. More than 85
percent are decent, law-abiding citizens who live in fear of
crime. The way to address the crime problem is not repeal of
the cap on rents, but through eviction and prosecution of
criminal tenants.
I fear that the real intention in repealing the Brooke
Amendment is to abandon federal public housing. This
misguided and hard-edged legislative action will destroy the
foundation of our federal housing policy.
Abandoning public housing is unwise for the country. It
ignores the investment that this country has already made to
build millions of units of housing--housing that, if we had
to rebuild today, would be prohibitive in cost.
The Brooke Amendment is not a budget buster. Last year, the
federal government provided $2.9 billion to agencies that run
public housing. This figure was dwarfed by the $58.3 billion
in mortgage interest deductions that reduce housing costs for
middle- and upper-income people. There is clearly no fairness
or equity in the allocations between the haves and the have-
nots.
There comes a point in making policy decisions when
compassion and common sense must dictate. I respectfully urge
my Republican successors in Congress to preserve the Brooke
Amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed].
(Mr. REED asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Frank
amendment. I have heard from hundreds of Rhode Islanders who are
concerned about the repeal of the Brooke amendment. While I commend
Chairman Lazio's amendment which aims to improve his original provision
regarding rent payments, I believe that we need to do more to protect
those Americans who relay on public and assisted housing.
Our Nation's low-income residents are already coping with drastic
cuts in funding for many important programs. Rhode Island's seniors,
disabled, and low-income families are already forced to make many
choices between the bare necessities of life that Members of Congress
do not face. The Frank amendment will allow these people to live in
decent, affordable housing and still provide for their food, clothing,
and medicine. Simply put, increasing rents for our Nation's most
vulnerable will not achieve the goal of ``empowering'' our citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to provide real help to our Nation's
elderly, disabled persons, children, and low-income residents. Support
the Frank amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Frank amendment. I have
heard from hundreds of Rhode Islanders who are concerned about the
repeal of the Brooke amendment. While I commend Chairman Lazio's
amendment which aims to improve his original provision regarding rent
payments, I believe that we need to do more to protect those Americans
who rely on public and assisted housing.
We need to ensure reasonable rents for our Nation's seniors, disabled
persons, and low-income families so that they can live in safe decent
and affordable housing. Our Nation's low-income residents are already
coping with drastic cuts in funding for many important programs, and
now we are contemplating penalizing those who may find themselves in
need of public housing in the future whose incomes fall below 50
percent of the median income level.
Rhode Island's seniors and disabled are already forced to make many
choices between the bare necessities of life that Members of Congress
do not face. The Brooke amendment has allowed these people to live in
decent, affordable housing and still provide for their food, clothing,
and medicine. Simply put, increasing rents for our Nation's most
vulnerable will not achieve the goal of ``empowering'' our citizens.
Rather, it could force many of these people deeper into poverty.
In Rhode Island, the Brooke amendment matters. In Rhode Island,
25,100 households fall under the Brooke amendment, and not all of them
live in public housing. The Brooke amendment matters because 11,400 of
these households including children that need to be fed, clothed, and
educated. The Brooke amendment matters because the Providence housing
market lost some 1,100 units of affordable housing from 1988 to 1992.
Regrettably, the bill we are now considering will only exacerbate the
problems of those struggling and older Rhode Islanders who desperately
need the Brooke amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to provide real help to our
Nation's elderly, disabled
[[Page H4668]]
persons, children, and low-income residents. Support the Frank
amendment.
{time} 1145
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Los Angeles, CA [Ms. Waters], a member of the
committee and an expert in this field.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I agree that this is, too, about the Brooke
amendment, but it is about more than the Brooke amendment. It is about
whether or not we are going to develop some sensible public policy that
will allow people to become independent.
My friends on the other side of the aisle claim to understand that we
have a lot of policies in government that do not allow people to really
pull themselves up by their bootstraps. When we look at public housing,
we will find a lot of that. One of those policies is the policy that
will take more from people when they go to work, which serves as a
disincentive.
Recognizing this, we are simply saying, and the chairman needs to
understand this, because I do not think he is a dishonest man. I really
believe that he is little bit confused about this. When we say that we
want to make sure that we are not taking away more than 30 percent, we
are doing this so that we can create incentives for people to go to
work and earn more money without their rents being raised to 40 and 50
percent. It is as simple as that.
We here in this House, many of us make as much money, take home as
much money as these residents make in an entire year.
We heard what the income is of these residents. We take that much
money home a month. Let me say, taking that much money home a month,
some Members on the other side of the aisle sleep in their offices at
night and they get free rent. How dare we talk about taking away more
money from the poorest of the poor. We have policies now in public
housing where, if one of the members of the family goes to work, we
take away more money. This is outrageous and unconscionable. My
colleagues ought to just quit it.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I will tell my colleagues what is outrageous and unconscionable. It
is penalizing work. It is to continue to have the Brooke amendment in
place. It is to suggest that rents continue to be tied to income,
whether it is 30 or 20 or 25 percent. None of us have to deal with
that. None of us have to pay 20 percent of our income the day we look
for an apartment.
No one goes around and shops for an apartment and finds that this
apartment is 25 percent of our income or this is 30 percent of our
income, but that is precisely the old model that they want to go back
to. That is precisely the model that has led to disastrous results. Do
not ask me; go back to the housing authorities that have said this.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds
to point out, nice speech, wrong subject.
The amendment we are offering on a bipartisan basis does not tie rent
to income. It allows the housing authority every freedom to set the
rent for working people except in one context. It says it cannot go
above a certain amount. The only difference between this amendment and
the gentleman's proposal, by the way, with regard to welfare recipients
we are the same. With regard to existing elderly people we are the
same. But with regard to working people and new elderly residents,
there is one difference. We say set the rent however you want and
whatever basis you want, but there is an upper limit. Their bill says,
set the rent however you want and whatever way you want without an
upper limit. Some protection.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr.
Sanders].
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to make two basic points.
First of all, one of the great crises in America today is that
millions and millions of low income and working people are spending 40,
50, 60 yes, 70 percent of their limited incomes on housing. Therefore,
they just do not have the money available for the food they need, for
the transportation they need and maybe to put away a few bucks for
educational opportunities for their kids. That is a real crisis.
The second point that I would make is to try to put this discussion
in human terms. I called up a housing authority, senior citizen housing
authority in Vermont this morning. They told me that many of the
seniors in the housing earn $8,000 a year on average from Social
Security. Right now they are paying 30 percent of their income for
rent, $2,400 a year.
Mr. Chairman, if this proposal that is in the bill goes through, what
could very easily happen is that senior citizens bringing in $8,000 a
year will now pay 40 percent of their income in housing. That is an
additional $800 a year, when you are bringing in $8,000 a year. Ten
percent of all of your income more now goes for housing.
Second of all, if their Medicare proposals go into effect and we
raise the Medicare premiums for senior citizens, in a few years time we
will be talking about those same seniors paying $500 a year more for
Medicare premiums; $800 plus $500, $1,300 a year more on a senior
citizen earning $8,000 a year on Social Security.
Meanwhile, we are talking about huge tax breaks for the wealthiest
peole in America. Mr. Chairman, this proposal in the bill is unfair. It
constitutes a war against many senior citizens.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds
to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], my
friend and colleague, former ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Housing and Community Opportunity.
(Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Frank
amendment to keep traditional Brooke percentage of income rents in
place for all public housing residents. While I share his concern that
the very low-income families must be protected, but I also think we
must allow room for more local decisionmaking to create public housing
communities that are more socially and economically mixed, that provide
more inspiring environments for the children and that remove
disincentives to work. Also, we must face the budget realities. It
seems unreasonable to keep Brooke in full force while the compensating
operating subsidy will fall almost $1 billion in fiscal year 1996 and
fiscal year 1997 from what is needed for the current system. Let public
housing administrators find ways to become less dependent on shrinking
subsidy resources and let us not presume that they are less sensitive
to the needs of the poor than Congress.
I think your bill takes important steps to reform a program that has
been laden with Federal misdirections over the years. Allowing the
limited use of new flat and tiered rents for other than the poorest is
a good move. We should allow PHA's, within limits, to imitate more
fully the simpler rent methods of the private world, where extra family
income doesn't result in extra rent. It is important in the era of
welfare reform that we remove disincentives to work which many feel has
often been unintended consequence of Brooke. By the way, we allow rents
in excess of 30 percent of income in the voucher, tax credit, and HOME
programs.
I urge the chairman as this legislation evolves with that of the
Senate to consider increasing the minimum percentage of units that a
PHA must always afford to those very, very low-income households below
30 percent to something higher than the bill's 30 percent to some
higher percentage. I also urge you to ensure that the current, non-
Brooke residents are thoroughly protected from burdensome rent
increases by seeing whether the Gonzalez cap is adequate for that
purpose.
I applaud your undertaking to update this valuable, but overly
federalized housing program. Let's give change a chance.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following correspondence:
Mr. Chairman: I am going to support you on the issue raised
by Mr. Frank's amendment to keep traditional ``Brooke''
percentage of income rents in place for all public housing
residents. While I share his concern that the very low-income
families must be protected, but I also think we must allow
room for more local decision making to create public housing
communities that are more socially and economically mixed,
that provide more inspiring environments for the children,
and that remove disincentives to
[[Page H4669]]
work. Also, we must face the budget realities and our own
outlawing of unfunded mandates. It is unreasonable to keep
Brooke in full force while the compensating operating subsidy
will fall almost a billion dollars in fy96 and fy97 from what
is needed for the current system. Let us let public housing
administrators find ways to become less dependent on
shrinking subsidy resources and let us not presume that they
are less sensitive to the needs of the poor than Congress.
I think your bill takes important steps to reform a program
that has been laden with federal misdirections over the
years. Allowing the limited use of new flat and tiered rents
for other than the poorest is a good move. We should allow
PHAs, within limits, to imitate more fully the simpler rent
methods of the private world, where extra family income
doesn't result in extra rent. It is important in the era of
welfare reform that we remove disincentives to work which
many feel has often been an unintended consequences of
Brooke. By the way, we allow rents in excess of 30% of income
in the voucher, tax credit and HOME programs.
I urge the chairman as this statute evolves with that of
the Senate to consider increasing the minimum percentage of
units that a PHA must always afford to those very, very low
income households below 30% to something higher that the
bill's 30% to some higher percentage. I also urge you to
insure that the current, non-Brooke residents are thoroughly
protected from burdensome rent increases by seeing whether
the Gonzalez cap is adequate for the purpose.
I applaud your undertaking to update this valuable, but
overly-federalized housing program. Let's give change a
chance.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts
for yielding time to me.
Let me remind my colleagues, as I told them last night, I was one of
the members of the Democratic party who supported this legislation when
we reported it from the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. I
commend my colleague from New York for crafting a bill which I believe
moves public housing policy forward in ways which I agree with. In
particular, greater involvement at the local level, moving away from
project-based assistance to tenant-based assistance through the use of
vouchers and promoting home ownership. These are proper goals. But the
bill is not perfect.
By removing the Brooke amendment, which places a rent cap of 30
percent, it creates some serious problems. There are two significant
problems with the repeal of Brooke which we should correct by adopting
the Frank-Gutierrez-Hinchey amendment.
First, by lowering the funding for assisted housing and removing the
rent cap, local housing authorities will have no choice but to raise
rents to meet existing demand, let alone any growth. It is a simple
economic fact which the majority deny but not dispute. The housing
authorities will have to maximize revenues to meet need and can only do
so by raising rents.
Second, the bill, through the manager's amendment, makes the same
mistake that we have in Federal welfare policy. By lifting the rent cap
for families with incomes over 30 percent of the median, we actually
tax work and thus create a discentive to achieve.
I think my colleagues in the majority would agree that an effective
tax increase of 100 percent is a disincentive to economic opportunity
and growth, let alone work. This bill moves us in the right direction,
which should be to help people in need but to try and move them away
from housing projects and ultimately off assistance and into homes
which they own. But by repealing the Brooke amendment and not adopting
the Frank amendment, we will contradict that goal and ultimately fail.
Adopting the Frank amendment will correct this flaw in an otherwise
well-intentioned bill. I would ask my colleagues to remember, when they
have gone to the bank to apply for a mortgage, that the banks will
often have them fill out a formula that tries to see if you can pay the
monthly note with 28 to 30 percent of your adjusted gross income.
Adopt the Frank amendment.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to just
outline the fact that the compromise that was struck on the so-called
Brooke amendment which allows for protection in our bill, the poorest
of the poor, seniors and disabled, is supported by housing authorities
throughout the country, including the Massachusetts Chapter of the
National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials.
Let me just read part of that, if I can:
``We support the compromise language on the Brooke amendment. We do
not support the position taken by Congressman Kennedy and Congressman
Frank. Both Congressman know this. Massachusetts Housing Authorities
are pleased that your legislation will breathe life into dying housing
developments. Key to our support is the local control, flexibility and
trust you place in locally elected or appointed officials to lead LHA's
and to do the right thing. Your concept is correct. They are
accountable to their communities.''
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I just point out that
when you are putting money in the back pocket of the housing
authorities, it is very easy to get a letter like that.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it is not
this side of the aisle but your side of the aisle that wants to
increase administrative fees that go directly to housing authorities.
They simply want the flexibility to do the right thing.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I know this is clearly one where the housing authorities are on one
side; the tenants are on the other.
{time} 1200
No tenant has said to me, ``Please let them raise my rent.''
The housing authorities explained this to me: Given the cutbacks that
have occurred in the housing budget, they believe they are going to
have to raise the rents on working tenants to get moneys to offset it.
One of them said to me, yes, these Massachusetts people will be between
a rock and hard place. I do not think that is the case. I think they
are between a rock and a rather soft place, the lower income people.
But I do understand the housing authorities are faced with these cuts,
are prepared to raise the money from the tenant. I disagree very much
with the housing authority.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from the great State of Oklahoma [Mr. Watts]
for purposes of offering an amendment.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Watts of Oklahoma as a Substitute for the
Amendment Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, as Modified
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a
substitute for the amendment, as modified.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Watts of Oklahoma as a substitute
for the amendment offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts as
modified:
Page 157, after line 26, insert the following new
subsection:
(b) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, the amount paid by an assisted family that is
an elderly family or a disabled family, for monthly rent for
an assisted 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
may not exceed 30 percent of the family's adjusted monthly
income.
Page 158, line 1, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
Page 158, line 9, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
Page 159, line 1, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
Page 172, line 11, before the period insert the following:
; except that in the case of an assisted family that is an
elderly family or a disabled family, the amount of the
monthly assistance payment shall be the amount by which such
payment standard exceeds the lesser of the amount of the
resident contribution determined in accordance with section
322 or 30 percent of the family's adjusted monthly income.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma (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
Oklahoma?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reserving the right to object, Mr.
Chairman, we have not been given the courtesy of a copy.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma asks unanimous consent that
the amendment be considered
[[Page H4670]]
as read. The gentleman from Massachusetts reserves the right to object.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Indeed, since we have just now been given
a copy, I do object but would like to proceed with the reading.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman withdraw his reservation of
objection?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I object because we need time to read
this. We have not been given the courtesy.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman objects. The Clerk will continue the
reading.
The Clerk completed the reading of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts] is recognized
for 2 minutes.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, as we have heard read, this
amendment provides for protection of elderly and disabled by providing
that their rental payment will not exceed more than 30 percent of the
family's monthly adjusted income.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
The CHAIRMAN. Before the gentleman is recognized, the Chair wants to
make sure everyone understands that the time utilized to discuss the
substitute in front of us is taken from the 1 hour equally divided
between the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from New
York so that the gentleman has the opportunity to utilize that time in
debating either the substitute or the amendment originally offered by
the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent,
given the changing aspects of this, that we add another 10 minutes to
each side of the debate.
The CHAIRMAN. Is it the intent of the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Kennedy] that that time be allocated simply to the substitute or
to the full 60 minutes allocated earlier?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would offer it to the
full 60 minutes, depending on how this works out.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts asks unanimous consent
that an additional 10 minutes equally divided between both sides be
allocated to the original 60 minutes of debate for consideration of the
Frank amendment.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] for
his courtesy in this regard.
We have here one more tactical retreat. In the interests of
simplicity, they further complicate things. Here is the problem:
The manager's amendment would have created a new notch act for people
who are nostalgic about the notch act. The manager's amendment that the
other side was so vehemently defending said for currently disabled and
elderly people it would be a 30-percent cap, but for new people it
would not be. So now what this does is to apply the 30-percent cap to
new elderly people.
I like that. So does my amendment.
Why is it offered now? It is offered now in a desperate hope to
prevent a vote on the underlying amendment because if this substitute
is adopted, then there is no vote on the underlying amendment.
As a matter of fact, this was a preexisting amendment, and
intellectual property does not apply in here. It is a substitute
amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts] crossing
out ``Mr. Hinchey of New York.'' They took Mr. Hinchey's amendment,
which would have done this subsequently, and they crossed it out and
they wrote in ``Mr. Watts.''
Mr. Chairman, that is okay. They can do that. The gentleman from
Oklahoma is not the Peoples' Republic of China. He is not held to any
standard on intellectual property. He can copyright and counterfeit and
pirate; that is OK. But the reason he did it is to prevent a vote under
the underlying amendment.
And I just want to make one point before I yield to my friend from
Massachusetts. Understand that the gentleman from New York said the
tenants are better off without this 30-percent cap. Understand the
wholly illogical and inconsistent approach he takes. On the one hand he
says over 30 percent cap has been bad, even if it is not a flaw, it is
bad for the tenant, it drives their rents up. So now he says, ``I am
going to protect the elderly by subjecting them to that 30 percent
cap,'' that he says is so bad for them. It just shows what a sham this
is.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have a question of the
author of the amendment.
The gentleman has offered this amendment under the section that deals
with the vouchers of programs side of this. Does the gentleman intend
for this to cover public housing as well?
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, this would apply to tenant
based, project based and public housing.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman, are
you sure, Mr. Lazio, it applies to public housing? Because you have
offered it in the third section of this bill.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, maybe
we should find the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey]. They stole
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey]. Why
do we not get the gentleman from New York to explain it to the
gentleman?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would
continue to yield, I am just pointing out to my colleague that he has
offered this amendment in the third section of the bill, and my
understanding from staff is that that raises a serious question as to
whether or not it covers public housing.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, in fact what happened was
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey] had two separate amendments,
and they only stole one. They forgot to steal them both. So the
gentleman only took half of Hinchey; he got a ``Hinch'' but no ``E''
here. So that is the problem.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous-consent request
to amend this amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for the
purpose of a unanimous-consent request.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to
allow this amendment to apply to seniors, prospectively in public
housing, as well as those seniors who use vouchers through the section
8 program.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reserving the right to object, Mr.
Chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey] has these
amendments in proper form pending. The appropriate way to do this would
be to vote on the amendment that is now pending. If it is defeated,
these two amendments would then be in order. This is simply an effort
to hijack the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey] to
preempt a vote, and therefore I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, we are again going around and around. We are talking
about ensuring that working people have the incentive to go to work. We
are trying to ensure that the Brooke amendment, which is a tax on work,
which will result, even the Frank amendment will result, on more taxes
on working people, on higher rents, kills jobs, hurts working poor,
hurts working people, hurts mixed income, will be defeated.
What we are saying is that we need to protect the most vulnerable
members of our society, and that is not inconsistent. We are saying we
need to protect the seniors, we need to protect the disabled, we need
to protect the poorest of the poor, and all those people are protected
in our manager's amendment and in our bill.
We are trying to move beyond that. The gentleman has objected to a
unanimous-consent request so that we can apply this to seniors in
public housing, but we are going to apply this prospectively in the
future to seniors using section 8 voucher-based program.
[[Page H4671]]
We will, through the process, hope to amend this even through the
objections of the other side so that seniors will be protected who will
prospectively live in public housing.
Let me explain for my colleagues what we want to do so that working
people have a decent chance. If we have fixed rents, flat rents, the
rents that all of us pay in their own marketplace, if we go out and
look for an apartment, someone does not ask us how much we make and we
will fix the rent based on how much that person makes, whether it is 20
percent, 25 percent or 30 percent. If the housing authority fixes rent
for an apartment at $65 a month and somebody is making $75 a week,
under the Frank-Gutierrez amendment, as it currently stands, they would
pay $100 as opposed to $65 a month, a disincentive to go to work for
even $75 a week.
If someone is offered overtime and the ability to go to work again
and take another job and make $150 a week, again his rent goes up.
Instead of paying $65 a month, he goes to $200 a month. Why should
somebody go out and do the overtime if he knows it is being eaten up in
additional rent? If he goes to $300 a week, his rent goes up to $400 a
month as opposed to $65 a month. All these are disincentives to work.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\
minutes to say I have never heard such misleading nonsense on the House
floor. The amendment we offer does not require anybody's rent to go up
a penny. Indeed it is the amendment of the gentleman from New York
already in the bill that allows the housing authority to go much
higher.
We say, ``The housing authority, use whatever basis you want, but in
no case go above 30 percent.''
The gentleman from New York says, ``Use whatever basis you want and
go as high as you want.'' And if, in fact, not being subjected to a cap
is such a protection, why is he then taking that away from the elderly?
But the central point is the gentleman from New York has just made
statements that are so widely at variance with the facts that I am
astonished. He says under our amendment the individual's rent would go
up. No, only if the housing authorities, whom he is defending here,
choose to do it.
His argument is that if we give a housing authority a 30-percent
limit, they will set the rate higher than if we tell the housing
authority they can set it as high as they want to. The gentleman knows
that is a hard argument to make. That is why, just to remind people of
the parliamentary situation, the gentleman has taken the Hinchey
amendments in an imperfect form and put them in here, because he is
desperate to avoid a vote.
The key difference is this: Under his bill, even with the Hinchey
amendments that they have stolen for these purposes, working people
will be subject to unlimited rents, people on welfare and elderly will
be subjected and protected by the 30-percent cap. That would then be
the sole difference, and I believe we ought to have a vote on that and
not be preempted by some parliamentary sleight of hand.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, it is ironic the gentleman from Massachusetts is
complaining about parliamentary sleight of hand.
Mr. Chairman, I am trying to compromise and move the extra yard to
ensure that some of the concerns by the other side of the aisle are
met. I tried to make unanimous-consent requests to allow that seniors
who will prospectively live in public housing or use section 8 housing
will be able to have the protections that the other side claims that
they are in favor of. But that is not good enough. They have objected
to my unanimous consent.
If the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] wants an up-and-down
vote on his amendment, which I think is a disastrous amendment, which
all housing authorities' associations have basically said is a
disastrous amendment, I am happy to do that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from the great State of
Oklahoma [Mr. Watts] for purposes of unanimous-consent request to
withdraw the amendment as it exists and to allow the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] to offer it as is.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw my substitute amendment and then proceed.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma
[Mr. Watts] as a substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] is withdrawn.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, may we know how much time
is remaining and on what amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. At the present time the original Frank amendment is the
only amendment before the House.
The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has 10\1/2\ minutes
remaining, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] has 12 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1215
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from the great State of Arizona [Mr. Hayworth],
a great member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity
of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for
his courtesy in that introduction and, indeed, for his goodwill and
incredible patience in trying to deal with what has become a very
contentionus situation.
My good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, to whom I always
listen with great interest, a little bit earlier said he had never
heard such outrageous nonsense on the floor of this House. Resisting
the temptation to bring up some incredible mathematic equations that
have been offered by that side with reference to real increases in
spending being portrayed as cuts, I would simply say that there has
been a great deal of nonsense that has emanated from the other side of
the aisle with reference to a myriad of subjects.
But let us move away from nonsense to solving this problem. That is,
trying to have housing for the poorest in our society, trying to reach
out and empower them to become part of the economic mainstream and to
live the American dream.
Mr. Chairman, it is inherent with the proposal from my colleague, the
gentleman from Massachusetts, that an unintended by-product, an
unintended consequence, if you will, even with the modification, is to
in essence levy a tax on those who want to work; for even if there is a
cap instituted, as the gentleman from Massachusetts in modifying his
amendment has done, even if there is a cap, the temptation is always to
go to that limit, to that cap and no further.
Indeed, if we focus on what has been our history, if we focus on the
parameters set forth, if we have that parameter decreed by Washington,
it is a virtual certainty that then the 30 percent cap will in fact
take place, you will have a situation where you have a malicious tax
imposed, and that is something we must categorically reject. I stand in
opposition to the amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], one of the senior members of the
committee, a great housing advocate.
(Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, the proposition that is proposed here by the majority
is that if we have safeguards in terms of limiting rent, that that is
somehow going to hurt the tenants. That is what is being suggested. We
agree, I guess, on the senior citizens that are in housing and
disabled, and on very low income, but not on future senior citizens or
low-income residents. We are going to have a disparity. They are going
to pay more, or they are at least going to be exposed to pay more for
rent.
I am not surprised that housing authorities actually want this
flexibility.
[[Page H4672]]
Let us face it, the administration, housing authorities, want all the
money and all the flexibility they can get. That is not surprising--the
housing authorities trust themselves. It is our role in Congress to
look at whether or not we are going to accommodate and try to provide
some protection--some safeguards for those that are in public housing.
I think all we have to ask ourselves is who is for it and who is
against it. In other words, the housing authorities, the landlords are
for the Lazio amendment; they want the flexibility to go this way and
to in fact raise rents. The tenants are against it because they get no
assurance as to the limit of rent increases--no safeguards out of this
proposal.
In other words, this amendment that the gentleman has and the way he
has structured the law hurts the working poor. The Frank amendment
ceiling cannot hurt them, it can only help. If they want to collect
less, if you say they need work incentives, they can disallow income,
they can go in all sorts of directions. But the amendment that is
before us says you can only go down as long as you are below 30
percent. What is before us in the bill removes the ceiling, removing
the safeguards in terms of the costs protection for working Americans
who are in this public housing, that are fortunate enough to be in
public housing. When we remove the safeguards and reduce the Federal
dollars and restrict them in terms of this block grant, we can be sure
they are going to be pushed, pushed into higher rents for working
people and their families.
The fact is the Republicans refuse to deal with the minimum wage, and
now they are pushing low income public housing residents into higher
rents, higher rent for working Americans.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, we are still arguing about income-based rent. Therein
lies the philosophical divide. Therein is the reason why people who
manage public housing and do this on a daily basis day in and day out,
and live with the problems, live with the challenges, work with the
people, and understand the problems, why they say that this approach is
so devastating to work. They say it has been a disincentive to work, it
has been an incentive to fraud, and it has caused a humongous amount of
change in terms of mixed income, which is very important.
Let us talk about mixed income in public housing for a second,
because the Brooke amendment and the Frank amendment would continue to
com- pound the problem that exists in public housing today because it
chases out the people that get a job, because it is a tax on work. It
is a tax on employment. It is a work disincentive. It hurts the working
poor. It increases rent for the working poor.
Over here, we talk about the change that has existed as a result of
the changes through the last Congress as a result of many different
issues, including the Brooke amendment.
Over here, we show the red line, which is where tenant income as a
percentage of those people who occupy public housing, where it has
gone. In 1982 it was up here. In 1996, during that same time, the blue
line represents the operating subsidies, the amount of money that we
have had to subsidize as that has gone up in direct correlation. As
that number has gone down, the red line has come down; it means fewer
people have role models.
There are no opportunities to have the kind of exchange with working
people that leads to job opportunities: Have you heard about a job? Do
you know where I can get a job? Do you know where I can leave my
resume? All those things do not exist in some housing developments in
America. That is a disgrace. That is a shame. That is what the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], through his amendment, is
continuing to support.
Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to understand.
Apparently all the discussion has been unable to make our case quite
clearly. Is it the circumstance, in the gentleman's opinion, if a
working family is in public housing today and mom is at home, and they
somehow make arrangements to get child care, and mom leaves and takes
on a new job, so the income of the family may go up to $1,200 or $1,500
a month, they have to pay for day care, but that does not matter when
we look at the 30-percent rule, that that then applies to both new
incomes; so rather than mom go out and work and pay for day care, mom
just stays home. Is that what the gentleman is saying?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. That is exactly what I am saying. The day that
mom goes to work is the day she pays 30 percent of her income in new
taxes or rents.
Mr. BAKER of California. If the gentleman will further yield, he is
telling me that it is the local housing authority that sets the rules
in place.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute,
and we can continue this debate.
Mr. Chairman, I would say the gentleman from New York has a key
point, but I think it makes our argument. Remember, the Brooke
amendment has had two forms. As originally proposed by Senator Brooke
and adopted, it was simply a cap and not a floor. It was changed in
1981 to be both a cap and a floor. Interestingly, the gentleman's chart
begins with 1982, after the change. He is showing a decline.
In fact, the amendment we are offering would restore the Brooke
amendment to what it was before his. The point is, by the gentleman's
own point on the chart, the Brooke amendment, before Gramm-Latta, did
not have that effect. That is where he starts his chart. He
characterizes the negative effect of the amendment to the Brooke
amendment. But what we put forward leaves that out and restores it to
the pre-1982 pre-chart days.
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 exact same situation that
exists currently under Brooke will be in place under the gentleman's
amendment, the exact same situation.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is still talking about basing rent on
income. Whether it is 30 percent or whether it is 28 percent or 25
percent or 20 percent, Mr. Chairman, the day you go to work, you get
that additional tax. Your rent goes up. You are punished for working.
That is why this is a rent increase on the working poor.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to try to reach some
agreement here. The point is this: By the gentleman's own chart he is
acknowledging, by his choice of a date, that when the Brooke amendment
was simply a cap and not a floor, it did not have that negative effect.
His own chart starts there. I am talking about returning it to what the
gentleman regards from his chart as the good old days. The gentleman
should read his own chart.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, our chart
begins in 1982 or 1983. I guess we could have gone back 10 more years.
Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, anybody can make charts and draw diagrams. Certainly
they can make their own, rather than use ours. The point is, we should
turn to those people who administer public housing at the local level
and who do a good job.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would like to
understand, from a working family's perspective, let us assume the
example that the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Baker] gave of a family
whose mother goes out and gets this job. Does anybody really think it
makes a difference to her whether she is paying a percentage of her
income in rent or just an increase in rent? The truth of the matter is
that she is paying more in rent.
What is wrong with the first chart, which I would just take a second
to go
[[Page H4673]]
pull out here, the chart that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio]
used. Let us go to this chart here. Somehow or another, according to
this chart, the mythical rent under this bill will be $65 a month. The
truth of the matter is that what the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Lazio] does not say on this chart is the fact that there is no rent cap
whatsoever, and that this figure can go up twice as high as this
figure. This is a rent ceiling. There is no rent ceiling on that of the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], and that is the fundamental
difference.
Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about here is something fairly
simple. What we are talking about is the fact that under the Lazio
bill, we are saying that very poor people are going to be protected by
only paying 30 percent of their income. We are saying that elderly and
disabled people that are currently in public housing are only going to
pay 30 percent of their income.
The gentleman tried to amend his own bill by extending that to
elderly and poor new residents, but the truth is that the only people
left to jack up the rents on are the working people. It is the working
people, the very people that they claim to be protecting by the 30-
percent protection, by eliminating that, they are the only people left
on which to jack up the rents. By cutting the housing budget by $2.5
billion in public housing alone, $5 billion in both assisted and public
housing, you have to get public housing authorities to raise more
money, which is why they all endorse your bill.
What they are going to do is jack up the rents, and with the
protections that you have provided, the only people they can jack up
the rents on are the working people of this country who occupy public
housing.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out, it
has again been missed, that housing director after housing director
after public housing authority board member has contacted Members of
this Congress and said, ``Please, give us some relief from the Brooke
amendment.'' I think the chairman is in receipt of a letter from the
National Housing Officials Association. Would the chairman inform the
Members as to what this group's opinion is with regard to the effects
of the Brooke amendment?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to my friend, the
gentleman from Louisiana. Again, Mr. Chairman, the National Association
of Housing and Development Officials, the people that have the hands-on
experience, that work with this problem every day----
Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. The people who are going to decide how much
rent an individual is going to pay?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. That is right.
Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. The very folks who are in charge?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. That is precisely right. In their letter they
write that the Brooke amendment is a ``disincentive to work, encourages
fraud, and offers local housing authorities little flexibility to
reward working households.''
Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, does that mean, if the
gentleman will continue to yield, that if we keep the current system in
place, we discourage people from getting job skills and going to work
and maybe one day moving out of public housing? Is that the problem?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. That is precisely the problem.
Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman mean people
live in public housing for years?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. That is precisely the issue. If our intent is
simply to maintain or warehouse the poorest Americans, we are in the
process of doing that again, if we adopt this amendment.
{time} 1230
If our principle is to transition, to create an environment where
people can have work and hope and opportunity and get a job and make
their own choices, free of public subsidies and free of the artificial
world where incomes and rents are tied together, then we will move in
this direction.
Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Excuse me, because I am still having a hard
time. We are characterizing local public housing authorities across
this country as people who do not care about those people. By and
large, are not most of these individuals who serve on these authorities
either very low paid or volunteers trying to perform a public service
to help people in their community have decent housing? Is it the belief
that if we do what we are suggesting, as the chairman is trying to lead
this Congress, in doing that we are going to go out into all
communities in the country and start throwing people out of public
housing, is that the belief?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. The gentleman is hitting the point again. We
are saying that local people who have local vested interest, who have
dedicated their lives to housing, will be compassionate, will watch out
for the people that they have committed themselves to watch out for.
The National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials says,
``We vehemently deny the accusations from some that housing authorities
are seeking to immediately escalate rents without any regard to the
household's ability to pay.'' They are saying, ``We commit ourselves to
this. The reason why we are drawn to this occupation, to this job, is a
sense of duty to watch out for the poor. We are not going to be
devastating the poor. We are trying to give incentives to people to
work.''
Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Does the gentleman mean these people are
telling us if somebody goes to work they want them to be able to keep
the money?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. That is exactly what they are saying.
Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. I am shocked.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald], our newest
colleague.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank
Mr. Frank 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 who we are trying to
help, the residents of public housing. Please be clear.
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. The
practical effect of the Brooke amendment has been to cushion the
residents of public housing against the fluctuations in the housing
market.
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. I don't see any reason to repeal it but apparently there are
those who see fit to do so.
Mr. Chairman, let's tell the truth about this bill. 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 hypocritical 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 backhand and a
forehand slap to the faces of the residents of public housing. I hear
some of my colleagues say that they value home
[[Page H4674]]
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. And as the public housing units are turned into owner-
occupied housing, what will happened to the availability of the housing
for very low-income earners. Will the market respond by building more
affordable housing. I don't think so.
I would say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if we are
going to repeal the Brooke amendment, then let's take a serious look at
the Frank amendment. The Frank amendment sets a new 30-percent cap that
would be the maximum limit for a family's contribution to rent. This
amendment also establishes a flexible rent-to-income ratio that would
permit very low-income families to pay less than 30 percent of their
incomes in rent if the housing authority chose to implement such rent
standards.
When I began my career in public service, I wanted to serve my
constituents, especially the vulnerable but not evict them. When I came
to Washington, I wanted to strengthen families not hurt them. I have
nine, count them, nine housing projects in a district that is just
under 36 square miles. In those housing projects are people just like
those of us sitting in this Chamber. The difference between us and them
is circumstances. The people in Nickerson Gardens Imperial Courts,
Jordan Downs, or Dana Strands struggle daily to make ends meet. They
are not looking for a hand out, they are simply looking for a
compassionated hand to assist them in getting by from one day to the
next while improving their circumstance. This amendment would help my
constituents. A 30-percent maximum cap on rents would help my public
houising constituents. If H.R. 2406 is going to repeal the Brooke
amendment let's replace it with the Frank amendment. This amendment is
sound public policy. After all, we are here to serve the public and not
our own political interest. I urge my colleagues to support the Frank
amendment, and maintain the goal of providing affordable housing to our
working poor.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 4
minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am glad the gentleman
from New York brought out his chart; it was his chart, and he picked
1982, not as a random number but because that is the point at which he
believes the Brooke amendment began to have a negative effect.
Interestingly, that is the year the Brooke amendment was changed. The
Brooke amendment began as a limit on the overall amount that could be
charged. It never argued for income-based rent in every case. It simply
said no matter what your basis is, housing authority, this high and no
higher.
In 1981, as part of the Republican program of Ronald Reagan passed by
a Republican conservative Democratic coalition, that was changed and it
became both the ceiling and a floor. At that point, yes, it did have
some unintended negative consequences. The theory was in Gramm-Latta
that they did not want to appropriate that much more Federal money, so
the reason they did that in 1981 was to force the housing authorities
to take more money in than they otherwise would, and that was wrong.
The amendment we are offering today restores the original Brooke
amendment, the pre-1981 amendment. It says there will be an overall
limit, and that is all it says. In fact, no one has shown any negative
effect during that period. We are restoring the Brooke amendment to
what it was in the 1960's and the 1970's. In other words, this argument
that the gentleman is making about a work disincentive is dead wrong.
As a matter of fact, under the proposal of the gentleman from New
York we get a work disincentive, because under his amendment there is a
30-percent cap on income for people who are on welfare, 30 percent of
the median or below. Under his amendment, if a person gets off welfare
and goes to work, then their rent can go up by more than their income.
He has the disincentive.
Why so illogical? Partly to try to get the votes, but partly because
again this is an effort to say if we do not appropriate the money, we
are going to get it out of the tenants.
Do the housing authorities have any strong objection to raising the
rents on the tenants? Surprisingly, not. But I do not believe that that
should direct our policy. So we would simply return to the days of the
Brooke amendment before it had any negative consequences. This is a
ceiling. It is not a floor. It had no work disincentives in the 1960's
and 1970's. It would have none again.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentlewoman from
California.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Frank] has stated it and I think it should be understood. But I want to
be clear, will the housing authorities have the ability to raise the
rents as high as they would like to, above the 30 percent, regardless
of ability to pay.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes. And under the amendment of the
gentleman from New York, what he says is this. He said it in his
argument: If we limit the housing authority to 30 percent we are
saying, ``Take any factors you want into consideration, geography,
whatever, but do not go above 30 percent.'' They will charge the tenant
more rent that if we say to them, ``Set the rent on whatever basis you
want but there is no cap.'' I have never before heard that imposing a
limit in fact required people to go higher than if there was no limit.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman again.
Ms. WATERS. Is this an attempt to get the operating expenses that
they rescinded and cut out of the budget, trying to get as much money
as they can from the tenant in order to offset the money that they cut
from the budget?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. That is absolutely right. Let me just
say, my friend from Minnesota just suggested a point. Under their
theory, the way to get the rents lower is to let the authorities charge
as much as they want. I guess the way to get people to drive more
slowly would be to remove the speed limit altogether. The gentleman
from Minnesota is right. I voted to go to 65, but maybe if we took the
speed limit off altogether people would go lower. This is the logic of
the gentleman from New York.
Remember, his amendment says if a person is on welfare and they are
making less than 30 percent of the median, they get the protection of
the 30-percent cap. He argues again illogically when he says, and I
hope he will try to explain this, this is a protection, but if they are
working it somehow would become an assault on them. I hope Ed Brooke's
original amendment is restored.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, we hear the same old stuff: Keep
the status quo. Protect things the way they are. Continue to warehouse
the poor. Continue to keep disincentives to work. Penalize the working
poor. Raise rents on the poor. Keep things the way they are because
that is OK.
It is not OK. It is not acceptable. This bill begins a process of
strengthening communities, of making communities healthy, of
increasingly having mixed income in developments, in public housing
developments, of encouraging people who want to work to go to work, to
make sure that a mom who wants to work overtime can do that without
fear of getting a 25- or 30-percent tax the day she goes to work.
The Frank amendment destroys that opportunity. It is a disincentive
to work. It destroys the ability to have mixed incomes. As long as they
wed themselves to the old status quo model of tying income to rent, it
will continue to be a disincentive to work and will continue to have
the effect of concentrating the poorest of the poor in certain
developments. It will continue to have the effect of being a
disincentive to have an environment where people and children and
families can have a life where they can have hope and opportunity and
have a chance at a job. They can do the things that all of us want to
do.
We believe in partnerships. We believe in local responsibility. It is
ironic that the gentleman from the other side of the aisle is now
criticizing the housing authorities. For 30 years the people on the
other side of the aisle have said that housing authorities are
wonderful, that they should get more help, that they should be trusted
more. But now
[[Page H4675]]
it is convenient to say, ``Let us not trust local communities anymore.
Let us not trust local communities to make these decisions on their
own. Let us not trust them to have the right types of income
disregards.''
In this bill we have 10 different protections, including a phase-in
of rent where we have a situation where rent for some people does go
up. We have protections that would allow and facilitate people who want
to go out into the work force.
The model here, it is two different visions of America, Mr. Chairman.
One vision is a vision of maintaining the status quo, of continuing to
condemn the people on State Street to another 30 to 40 years of
virtually universal unemployment, of drug-infested apartments, of
having situations where there are poorly maintained apartments, as
opposed to another vision which would be a vision where we have mixed
income and incentives for people to work. People would have the ability
to use vouchers to buy their own homes if they want. Residents would be
able to buy their own public housing if they want.
By getting back to local involvement, local flexibility, we are in
fact encouraging work. We are providing work incentives. The Frank
amendment is a job killer. It is a disincentive to work. It will
continue to concentrate the poor. It will lead to warehousing of the
poor. Our model is a model of hope. It says that if a person is
motivated, if they have the opportunity to go to work, they will be
able to keep the fruits of their labor without penalty.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment,
which would restore the Brooke amendment to H.R. 2406. H.R. 2406
repeals this very crucial housing protection, a provision in current
law that has for the past 25 years, ensured that low-income families
would not be required to pay more than 30 percent of their income on
rent. The repeal of the Brooke amendment in this housing bill, would
have a very devastating effect on many Americans, forcing thousands out
on the street.
This bill reneges on our Nation's promise that Americans who are most
in need of housing assistance can afford to receive it.
This protection has 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 continues 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 passage of this very critical amendment in
ensuring basic housing protections to thousands of Americans most in
need.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in
support of this very important amendment, the reinstatement of the
Brooke provision.
A cornerstone of this country's public housing is affordability. The
elitist notion that $50 a month is not too much to ask for in rent is
the same notion that spurred Marie Antoinette to suggest that France's
poor should eat cake if they had no bread.
When you are the poor of the poor, then you have a perspective that
few of us in this chamber have ever known or will know. That should
not, however, stop us from having common sense about what is fair or
what is right.
Setting a 30-percent public housing or assisted housing maximum rent
limit based on income is the fair and right thing to do.
Many of us know, or have heard of the personal finance rule that
suggests that it is not economically sound to spend more than a third
of one's income on rent. This amendment would only make sure we do not
ask the poor to do more than is reasonable or possible for them to do.
This amendment would also establish a flexible rent-to-income ratio
that would permit very low-income families to pay less than 30-percent
of their incomes in rent. This does not make sense for those most
vulnerable residents of government-sponsored housing. If we keep
affordability in affordable housing we can keep families together and
not add to this country's homeless problem.
I would like to thank the sponsors of this amendment for their
foresightedness in bringing this amendment before the House for
consideration.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I want to lend my support to the efforts of
my colleagues to restore the Brooke amendment.
My congressional district has one of the largest concentrations of
public housing in this Nation. Under the Frank amendment, my
constituents' rent contribution would still be capped at a maximum of
30 percent of their income.
I would remind my colleagues that public housing is often the only
affordable housing for many poor and low-income residents. While the
manager's amendment has dramatically improved this bill, it still does
not protect low rents for new residents of public housing who have very
low incomes, many of them elderly or disabled. Let us not be guilty of
using our power to harm. Let us use our power to help.
If this amendment is not adopted residents with median household
incomes of less than $7,000 will find themselves making choices between
paying their rent or buying food.
Some may feel that budgetary constraints warrant a rent increase for
public housing residents. I would say to you that we should not balance
the Federal housing budget on the backs of the poor. I would urge my
colleagues to support the amendment.
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Frank-
Gutierrez-Hinchey amendment to restore the Brooke amendment and ensure
that low-income families can live in affordable housing. This past
March, the Secretary of Housing announced the results of a study
showing that our Nation's largest cities are plagued by a lack of
affordable housing. Over 5 million families are paying more than half
of their income on rent or are living in severely inadequate housing;
that figure continues to grow.
Capping rents for tenants in public housing at 30 percent of income
ensures that families can afford housing. For many families, it means
not having to choose between paying rent or putting food on the table
to feed their children.
In my home State of Connecticut alone, 71,000 units that could be
affected by repeal of the Brooke amendment. Residents in those units
now have stability in their housing costs--something especially
important in Connecticut, which has the fourth-highest rent levels in
the Nation. Removing the cap could push some of them into the private
market, where, according to HUD, an astounding 371,000 households
experience housing problems, primarily cost burdens in excess of 30
percent of income. In fact, a two-bedroom apartment in Connecticut is
unaffordable to 53 percent of all renter households, the 11th highest
rate in the Nation.
Nationally, public housing residents are extremely poor, often with
incomes of less than 20 percent of the median. Rather than bring in
substantial revenues, raising the percentage of income paid for rent
would likely lead to displacement and homelessness.
The Frank amendment helps to restore the goal we all have for public
housing: to lift tenants out of poverty, not to perpetuate it. The low
incomes of public housing residents are not a result of the Brooke
amendment, and repealing it may have just the opposite effect by
driving families deeper into poverty. I urge my colleagues to support
this important amendment. We need to help the most vulnerable of our
population and restoring the Brooke amendment will do just that.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], as modified.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196,
noes 222, not voting 15, as follows:
[[Page H4676]]
[Roll No. 156]
AYES--196
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
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
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schiff
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walsh
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--222
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Myers
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--15
Andrews
de la Garza
Frost
Hayes
Houghton
Laughlin
Molinari
Myrick
Paxon
Schroeder
Spratt
Stark
Torricelli
Weldon (PA)
Wise
{time} 1301
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Andrews for, with Mr. Paxon against.
Messrs. LEWIS of California, CHRISTENSEN, KASICH, COOLEY, and CARDIN
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. BLUTE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment no. 11 offered by mr. hinchey
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Hinchey: Page 76, after
line 16, insert the following:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, the
amount paid by an elderly family or a disabled family for
monthly rent for a dwelling unit in public housing may not
exceed 30 percent of the family's adjusted monthly income.
Page 157, after line 26, insert the following new
subsection:
(b) Limitaton.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
section, the amount paid by an assisted family that is an
elderly family or a disabled family, for monthly rent for an
assisted 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,
may not exceed 30 percent of the family's adjusted monthly
income.
Page 158, line 1, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
Page 158, line 9, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
Page 159, line 1, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
Page 172, line 11, before the period insert the following:
; except that in the case of an assisted family that is an
elderly family or a disabled family, the amount of the
monthly assistance payment shall be the amount by which such
payment standard exceeds the lesser of the amount of the
resident contribution determined in accordance with section
322 or 30 percent of the family's adjusted monthly income.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of Wednesday,
May 8, 1996, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey] and a Member
opposed will each control 5 minutes.
Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] seek the time in
opposition?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, yes.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey]
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is the case of the purloined amendment. A short
time ago I was appalled to see here in the House an attempt by the
opposition, the other side, to steal this amendment and to offer it as
a substitute for the Frank-Gutierrez amendment which was just before
the House a moment ago. Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, wiser heads
prevailed over there and that amendment was withdrawn.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering would preserve a
narrowly targeted version of the Brooke amendment. It would protect
seniors and disabled residents, who are the most vulnerable members of
our society, from further rent increases.
Senior citizens currently comprise 42 percent of our Nation's public
housing, and over a million seniors and disabled tenants currently
reside in public and assisted housing. In the State of New York, for
example, senior and disabled citizens reside in about one in two public
housing households. In my district in the upstate region that number is
significantly higher.
As I have traveled around in recent months, I have heard from many
seniors who fear the burden of higher rent payments with the proposed
repeal of the Brook amendment as it is proposed in the current bill
before us.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would point out to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Hinchey] that the amendment goes into not only title II but
[[Page H4677]]
title III. The Chair would appreciate it if the gentleman would ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered en bloc so that we
could cover both titles.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be considered en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I
want to note that earlier when this side made an effort to make a
unanimous-consent request to take care of this issue, we would have
disposed of this issue earlier if we had been afforded the same comity
that I now offer to the other side.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I express my appreciation to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Lazio], the subcommittee chairman, particularly for
the agreement that he made with me last night that this amendment would
be before the House shortly after the Frank amendment, and I appreciate
that.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to mention that a number of seniors around the
country, and particularly in my district and elsewhere, are concerned
about the bill that is currently before us.
For example, Jean Austin of Liberty, NY, wrote me earlier this year
to say the following, and I quote:
I read in the paper that Republicans in the House and
Senate want to raise rents for the elderly. Sir, I have an
income of $567 per month to live on. There are many people my
age that get far less than I do. What is going to happen to
them? Will they join the homeless on the streets because we
can't afford to keep our homes? Please, I beg you, help us.
That is what this amendment tries to do, Mr. Chairman. It tries to
help people like Jean Austin. Since the Great Depression, the Federal
Government has pledged to help provide a decent standard of living for
people during their golden years, and to protect them from poverty and
homelessness.
This support is symbolized by the Social Security Program, and
affordable housing has become another key element of that promise.
During the past year the standard of living of seniors has come under
very serious attack. The elderly have been told that they must pay
substantially more for medical services due to rising health care costs
and proposed reductions in the Medicare Program. They have been faced
with higher costs of food, utilities, and other basic items due to
proposed broad cuts in food stamps, the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program, and other essential Federal programs.
Now, Mr. Chairman, with the proposed elimination of the Brooke
amendment in H.R. 2406, we are telling them that they have to pay
substantially more to keep a roof over their heads. Under H.R. 2406, as
amended by the manager's amendment, about one in three new elderly
tenants would potentially be forced to pay upwards of more than $400
per year in increased rent.
Mr. Chairman, I include a letter from the American Association of
Retired Persons for the Record:
American Association of
Retired Persons,
Washington, DC, May 7, 1996.
Hon. Maurice D. Hinchey,
Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Hinchey: I am writing to express the
support of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP)
for your amendment to H.R. 2406 which would restore limits on
the amount that low-income seniors and disabled must pay for
rent in public and assisted housing.
AARP generally supports enhancing local housing authority
discretion and broadening the income mix of tenants housed in
public and assisted housing. Allowing more mixed income
housing should improve the quality of service in housing
communities and the responsiveness of housing providers to
their tenants. AARP believes, however, that H.R. 2406 goes
too far in removing all income targeting and all limitations
on the percentage of income that tenants must spend on rent.
The Association strongly supports your amendment to restore
limits on the amount of income paid by the poorest and most
vulnerable tenants of public and assisted housing. We
understand the necessity of generating sufficient income to
maintain the housing stock in the face of diminishing federal
resources. Eliminating the preference rules and broadening
the income targeting will provide increased revenues over
time that should help bridge that gap. Some have suggested
that the current limit on rents is a disincentive to
employment for tenants. Whatever the merits of this argument,
it should be obvious that it has little applicability to the
elderly and disabled. Eighty percent of the elderly living in
public and assisted housing are women living alone whose
average age is in the late 70's.
The federal government should stand by its responsibility
to help the poorest tenants by providing adequate operating
subsidies, not reducing rental assistance. Older tenants,
whose incomes average less than $7,500 per year, will be
facing less assistance from food stamps and other essential
services. To add major rent increases on top of these other
cuts will cause more problems than it will solve for local
housing authorities.
AARP appreciates your leadership in offering this
amendment. If we can be of assistance on these or other
issues, please do not hesitate to have your staff contact Jo
Reed of our Federal Affairs staff at 434-3800.
Sincerely,
Kevin J. Donnellan,
Acting Director,
Legislation and Public Policy.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, just for the sake of clarity, I
want to make sure that Members know and so that there is no
misinterpretation, under the current version of the bill seniors are
protected. The people who are in public housing right now have had
Brooke-type ceiling protections. We do not want to mischaracterize the
way the bill currently is.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is
correct. This amendment clearly deals with new tenants coming into
housing. There is a turnaround of about 15 percent a year in subsidized
housing alone.
Any senior citizen or disabled resident who is making more than 30
percent of area median income, which is roughly equivalent to the
earnings of a minimum-wage earner, will be left out in the cold under
the present bill. An estimated 135,000 elderly households in public
housing alone can be expected to be left unprotected by the present
bill that is before the House. Another 17,000 disabled households would
be left unprotected by the bill that is currently before the House.
Mr. Chairman, the numbers that I am giving relate only to those who
live in public housing. It does not begin to tell the story of the
additional tens of thousands of elderly and disabled, frail elderly and
disabled who are in assisted housing.
How are these families going to afford to pay higher rents if they
must also pay hundreds more for their health care, food, and other
basic necessities? Many households will be forced to choose between
housing and health care, food and medicine, and many families are going
to end up on the street as a result if this amendment is not adopted.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply preserve a narrowly tailored
form of the current rent ceiling named for a Republican Senator, passed
by a Republican Senate, and signed into law by a Republican President.
It is intended to preserve a minimum standard of living for the most
vulnerable members of our society: Our frail elderly seniors and
disabled people who are unable to work even part-time to supplement
their income.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment. It is the only
reasonable thing to do to correct a serious deficiency in the bill
currently before the House.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the bill that we have currently before us protects
seniors in every way that the minority has urged. It protects the
disabled population. No senior, no person who happens to be disabled
who happens to be in public housing will not have the protection that
they previously had.
The question over here is whether we will extend protection to people
not yet in public housing, not yet using vouchers, to pursue housing
options. In the last amendment I offered to support an effort to try
and extend this to seniors prospectively, for future seniors to come
in, for future people who might have disabilities to come into public
and assisted housing.
[[Page H4678]]
The bill as it is now is already supported by the American
Association of Homes and Services for the Aged; American Seniors
Housing Association; the National Apartment Association, and various
other associations that exclusively deal with housing for seniors.
Mr. Chairman, I am supportive of the effort to extend those
protections further and I am happy to support this amendment. We could
have done this through the last amendment, but through a unanimous
consent request we failed to get the opportunity to make that offer. I
am happy at this time to support this, and urge its adoption.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendments no. 14 and 18 offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments, and I
ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
The text of the amendments is as follows:
Amendments No. 14 and 18 offered by Mr. Kennedy of
Massachusetts: Amendment No. 14: Page 76, after line 16,
insert the following:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, the
amount paid by a family whose head (or whose spouse) is a
veteran (as such term is defined in section 203(b) of the
National Housing Act) for monthly rent for a dwelling unit in
public housing may not exceed 30 percent of the family's
adjusted monthly income.
Amendment No. 18: Page 157, after line 26, insert the
following new subsection:
(b) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, the amount paid by an assisted family whose
head (or whose spouse) is a veteran (as such term is defined
in section 203(b) of the National Housing Act) for monthly
rent for an assisted dwelling unit bearing a gross rent that
does not exceed the payment standard established under
section 353 for a dwelling of the applicable size and located
in the market area in which such assisted dwelling unit is
located may not exceed 30 percent of the family's adjusted
monthly income.
Page 158, line 1, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
Page 158, line 9, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
Page 159, line 1, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
Page 172, line 9, strike ``exceeds'' insert ``(A)''.
Page 172, line 11, before the period insert the following:
``, or (B) in the case of a family whose head (or whose
spouse) is a veteran (as such term is defined in section
203(b) of the National Housing Act), the lesser of the amount
of such resident contribution or 30 percent of the family's
adjusted monthly income''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of Wednesday,
May 8, 1996, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and a
Member opposed will each control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment very simply provides some basic
protections to America's veterans. These are two amendments which would
continue and extend the Brooke protections to the people that have
stood up and fought for this country, that have served in our country's
military, that in many cases--as the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.
Montgomery] knows all too well, who is going to speak on this
amendment--when we visit homeless shelters around America, far too
often we see one thing that the homeless have in common, and that is
that they served in this Nation's military.
What we find is that there are now tens of thousands of veterans that
are trying to get themselves back on their feet, that are learning to
go back to work, learning skills to rid themselves of drug and alcohol
problems, to deal with some of the psychological and other difficulties
that they had faced throughout their lifetime, and they are back on the
road to recovery, to becoming part of mainstream America.
This amendment as it is currently constituted, the way that the bill
currently works, would not provide the Brooke protections to people
that have minimum wage jobs.
{time} 1315
That means our Nation's veterans would go unprotected. I just think
that if we are going to protect the very poor, if we are going to
protect our senior citizens, if we are going to protect the disabled, I
would hope that we would find it in our hearts to protect our Nation's
veterans at the same time.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery], my good friend and former chairman of the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
(Mr. MONTGOMERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Really one of the biggest problems we have had with veterans is,
again, getting them out of the homeless areas and trying to get them
into the housing to improve their lives. We have done everything to try
to get them off the streets. About 25 percent of the people homeless
today on Washington, DC streets are veterans.
Let us not put a hindrance in front of them. Let us not make it
harder for them to get into these housing units. I know some of them
make the minimum wage and would probably have their rates raised in
these housing units. So I think the gentleman has got a good amendment.
I hope the other side would accept it. I certainly support this
amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank General
Montgomery for all the work he does on behalf of our Nation's veterans.
It has been a pleasure to serve with him in the Congress, and we are
going to continue to keep his memory alive on that committee long after
he chooses to leave.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I wonder if I could engage the gentleman from Massachusetts in a
colloquy over this. I certainly support his efforts to protect American
veterans. I believe the vast majority of veterans would fall under the
protections we have in this bill, because many of our Nation's veterans
are now seniors, having served our country in the Korean War, and World
War II. There are even veterans who have served in the Vietnam war and
who are now seniors. They would all have the protections under this
bill.
What we are talking about is carrying this protection to younger
veterans as opposed to older veterans. I wonder if I could turn to my
friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, if he could give me some
information about how many people we might be talking about in terms of
this veterans population, if he has any information about the
specifics?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman is aware,
the one area that we do provide a veterans preference in this country
is housing. So there are not statistics kept by HUD or local housing
authorities in terms of veterans status. But the truth of the matter is
that you are right, we are going to protect some veterans, some older
veterans in terms of the senior citizens protections. You are going to
protect some very, very poor veterans.
But the truth is that I have worked very hard with people on your
side of the aisle in the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to establish a
number of programs that work in conjunction with housing authorities
and voucher programs to make certain that we transit people out of
homelessness and into mainstream society, those individuals. And
thousands of them participate very much in the very programs that the
Brooke amendment would not longer provide protections to.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, we are
through the bill already protecting people who are what I would
classify as the poorest of the poor. Veterans who are basically
homeless would already be protected against dramatic rent increases in
the way that you would suggest. The bill already covers those people.
It already covers Americans who happen to be senior citizens, a large
percentage of those who are veterans.
[[Page H4679]]
I would like to work with the gentleman. I think one of the problems
that we are going to have is to work through a methodology since HUD
does not have the ability, a current ability, an immediate availability
of information that would determine who the veterans are in a
particular population to identify that.
I would be happy to work through this with the gentleman in
establishing a good database and ensuring that HUD has the information
to assess who are ensuring that HUD has the information to assess who
are veterans and who are not and who needs to be protected.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will
continue to yield, I appreciate the gentleman's offer for a study. I am
not sure that that is what is called for here.
I think what we ought to be doing is trying to make sure that we
provide this as a basic protection to our Nation's veterans. I think
that might cost a small amount of money to make sure that those
veterans do not have their rents jacked up, just as they are on their
way to recovery.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. The issue for me is not the money on this. I
am not asking for a study. I am simply saying, I look forward to
working with you so that HUD has sufficient information to implement
this plan.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I appreciate the gentleman's offer to
go out and gather additional information. I very much believe that this
is a basic minimum protection which we can take care of in the next few
minutes. I would hope that the rest of the Members of the Congress of
the United States would support the amendment.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
The amendments were agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title II?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that it now be in order to consider amendment No. 17 without prejudice
to other amendments in title II.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
amendment no. 17 offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts:
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 75 percent shall be families whose
incomes do not exceed 30 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, line 11, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
Page 153, line 16, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
Page 154, line 11, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.
Page 155, line 16, strike ``(f)'' and insert ``(g)''.
Page 156, line 1, strike ``(g)'' and insert ``(h)''.
Page 156, line 15, strike ``(h)'' and insert ``(i)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the committee of Wednesday,
May 8, 1996, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and a
Member opposed will each be recognized for 30 minutes.
Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] seek to control the time
in opposition?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I do.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] will be
recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment goes to the heart of how we are going to
take care of the working people and the poor of this country. This
amendment goes to the heart of the changes that take place in this
bill. We have seen the Congress in the last few minutes repeal the
protections of the Brooke amendment. Now the question becomes whether
or not, on top of that, we are going to also repeal the targets of the
protections that we provide by virtue of the housing vouchers and
public housing units that are given by the people of this country,
whether or not those should go to the working people and the poor of
America or whether they should go on up the income stream to a point
where people whose incomes are 300 or 400 percent above the poverty
line will all of a sudden become eligible.
Mr. Chairman, this bill does a perverse thing. We cut the amount of
money going into public housing dramatically. We cut the amount of
money going into the voucher program dramatically, but we then increase
the eligibility of the families that will be qualified for these
housing units by a factor of three or four. So three or four times as
many people, if this bill is passed unamended, will be eligible for a
lesser number of housing units.
Now, to add insult to injury, we then are eliminating the basic
fundamental protections that say that the majority of those housing
units ought to go to the most vulnerable people in this society. This
is a concept that an organization as conservative as the Heritage
Foundation has endorsed. It is one thing to say, let us not concentrate
poor people in these monstrosities that we have seen paraded on the
House floor in the form of these various pictures. But the housing
voucher program does not warehouse the poor. The housing voucher
program simply gives individuals a housing voucher. That voucher can be
taken anywhere that individual chooses to live.
Mr. Chairman, the statistics on where they choose to live are rather
enlightening. Most voucher holders, nearly all of whom meet the current
targeting requirements in the law, live in neighborhoods where less
than 25 percent of the households are considered poor. Forty percent of
the voucher holders live in neighborhoods where less than 10 percent of
the neighborhood is poor.
So this is not a question of warehousing poor people, as I am sure we
are going to hear the opposite side suggest. This is simply a question
of whether or not we are going to target the resources, the meager
resources that we put into public housing, that we put into the voucher
program, to go to those in greatest need.
We have seen an unbelievable number of very poor people in this
country grow over the course of the last 15 years. The statistics are
alarming. The number of homeless Americans, the number of people
without any shelter has grown substantially. We have actually cut out
almost 500,000 units of housing in the United States of America that
goes to very poor people. At the same time, if you go up the income
stream a little bit, not that people are well off, but if you go up the
income stream just a little bit to people within 300 or 400 percent of
the poverty line, you are going to find that there are over half a
million new units of housing for those people's needs. It is already
enough.
But to suggest in this bill that we eliminate the Brooke amendment
and then we come back and say that we are no longer going to target
this housing to the very poor, I think, is a very dangerous policy
which in fact will go out and create homelessness in America.
Mr. Chairman, we are verging on a brave new world where we turn to
the people of America, we blame public housing authorities, we blame
the voucher program for creating this warehousing of the poor. We then
cut the money that goes into trying to assist them and then we come
back and say we are going to jack up the eligibility requirements,
which means that there is one group of losers. That group of losers
happens to be the most vulnerable people in this country.
So, yes, all the housing authorities will like these changes,
because, of course, it insulates them from having to take care of the
most vulnerable
[[Page H4680]]
people in the country. But what is it, why are we here in the Congress?
Where are we, what kinds of public policies are we trying to
incorporate? It is not just to look out after those that can look out
after themselves. It is to have a compassionate country, to look out
after the vulnerable.
My goodness, we cannot just blame these housing monstrosities, blame
everything that we do as a country to look out after poor people and
say, look, none of it ever works and, therefore, we turn our backs on
the poor and say we are not going to do anything to help them. Let us
have some compassion in how we choose to deal with these problems. The
voucher program does not warehouse the poor. The voucher program will
not lose money for the Federal Government.
Let us continue to provide the voucher program, with the targeting
that says to make sure that the most vulnerable people in this country
get the resources, the meager resources that we have allocated in this
bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, again, the argument is between local control and
community control and continuing to have a Washington-based, one-size-
fits-all solution for every community in the Nation.
The other side of the aisle continues to argue that every community
in the Nation ought to live under the same rules, regardless of whether
that means moving to the lowest common denominator, regardless of
individual characteristics of communities throughout our Nation,
regardless of the quality of the neighborhoods and the quality of the
life of the people that are impacted.
We are saying in this bill, Mr. Chairman, that 50 percent or half of
the vouchers and certificates that are available most go to the poorest
of the poor, those below 60 percent of median income. If a housing
authority wants to give 100 percent of their vouchers and certificates
to people below 30 percent or below 20 percent or with no income at
all, they can do it. There is no prohibition to that.
What we are saying is that housing authorities need to have
flexibility. Why should a family who is at the point of 32 percent of
median income be denied a voucher, which would be the case under the
Kennedy amendment? Why should a family who is at 35 percent of median
income, as opposed to 30 percent or 29 percent, be denied the ability
to have a voucher?
Mr. Chairman, the Kennedy amendment, the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Kennedy], who I have a great deal of respect for, ties the hands
of housing authorities, inhibits flexibility, prohibits local control.
We are saying that there may be situations where people who are
pursuing work may need more flexibility. They should be able to be
retained in public housing without being thrown out or not being able
to be afforded a voucher because they are somehow at 31 or 32 or 35 or
38 percent of median income as opposed to 29 or 30 percent.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
{time} 1330
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, this is very, very interesting. My friend,
the chairman of the committee, has just expanded, would like to expand,
rental assistance so that they pull in more people making more money,
up to $40,000 that they could make under his proposal. One would be
able to earn $40,000 and get rental assistance.
What he does not do is protect those, no, he does not protect those
who really need it, who make very little money, 30 percent of median
income, and this is very interesting. At the same time that he is
talking about reducing Government's involvement in peoples' lives, at
the same time that they are talking about shrinking Government, he just
opened it up so that people earning $40,000 could avail themselves of
rental assistance. Yet we know that it is those who earn very little
money who need it, those who earn very little money that can go out in
the marketplace and find a home, those women and children who
desperately need to get assistance. He is squeezing them out of the
market.
This is unbelievable. I am surprised that he would take this
approach. It is indeed not to be supported.
The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is saying let us
protect the poorest of the poor, let us make sure that 75 percent of
those who earn very little money, who are only at 30 percent, will have
the ability to go out and get assisted and have a place for them and
their children to live.
I think, again, the chairman may be a little bit confused about the
direction that his legislation is taking. It is very simple. Does the
gentleman want to expand it, get more people at higher incomes? Does
the gentleman want to protect the poorest of the poor? Does the
gentleman want to make sure that families who would have no other
place, no way to get assistance, are protected or in this legislation?
The answer to that, I think most people will conclude, is that we want
to protect those who do not have the ability to purchase housing.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, once again we are talking about insuring that people
who are working who have, possibly, disabilities, people who are
seniors, Americans who are seniors, also have the ability to get
choice-based vouchers.
The gentlewoman said this would potentially go to people making
$40,000 a year. There is not a neighborhood, an area of the country,
that would be able to get vouchers under this provision at $40,000 a
year.
The national median is about $38,000 a year in terms of median
income. We are saying at least half of those people, half of the
vouchers, must go to Americans at 60 percent of that, or $22,000.
If the housing authority wanted to target all of its vouchers to the
people at the bottom 10 percent, they have the ability to do that.
What we are saying is that we are going to allow for safety provision
in respect to the concern that many have that at least half of all the
vouchers must go to the bottom 60 percent of the population.
It is eminently fair.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, on a factual basis, let
me just read to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] the fact that
Los Angeles, Long Beach, 80 percent of median is $40,000; New York City
is $39,200. The gentleman's own district is $40,000.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what the
bill, what our bill, has is 60 percent of median income, not medium
income, not 80 percent of median income. It is 60 percent of median
income.
Now, without saying that a housing authority could not target all of
its assistance to the bottom 10 percent, I know the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Baker] wanted to----
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would
yield just so I can understand the amendment, my understanding was that
it only limited 50 percent of the units to go to the incomes at 60
percent of median.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Reclaiming my time, at least 60 percent of the
units. We could have 100 percent of the units at 30 percent, 20
percent, or 10 percent.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20
seconds.
The gentleman is correct that he gives the housing authorities the
right to take in poor people, but the gentleman has also pointed out
time and time again over the course of the last several hours the fact
that housing authorities are in need of funds. The only way they can
get those funds is by bringing in upper-income people. And so,
therefore, none of the housing projects, none of the housing
authorities, are going to, in fact, take advantage of this opportunity
that the chairman has provided.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
[Ms. Roybal-Allard].
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy's amendment,
which maintains income targeting at levels that protect very-low-income
families in the section 8
[[Page H4681]]
tenant-based assistance program. The Kennedy amendment is necessary to
address the provisions in this bill that detrimentally impact the lives
of thousands of very-low-income families who rely on section 8 housing
assistance.
Today, current law ensures that all new vouchers and 25 percent of
all certificates are provided to very-low-income families. The
legislation before us, however, allows housing authorities to set their
own targets as long as 50 percent of vouchers go to individuals earning
60 percent or less of area median income. This means that in cities
like Los Angeles, those earning 250 times the poverty level, or put
another way, as the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] has
stated, families of four earning $40,000 a year, would qualify for half
of the city's housing vouchers, leaving many low-income families
without vouchers and forced to pay market rents or, worse, become
homeless.
This is not the intent of public and assisted housing.
Furthermore, although achieving income mix is an important goal, the
weakening of income targeting in the voucher system is unnecessary
because tenants are already free to move to areas of their own
choosing.
The success of the current program is evidenced by the fact that most
section 8 tenants live in neighborhoods where less than one-quarter of
the residents are poor.
Reducing income targeting for voucher holders has no basis.
Although provisions in the manager's amendment help to improve the
bill, it still does not have the guarantees of Mr. Kennedy's amendment.
By insuring that at least 75 percent of vouchers go to families earning
less than 30 percent of area median income, Mr. Kennedy's amendment
will allow for an income mix while maintaining assistance for those who
need it most.
Mr. Kennedy's amendment upholds the intent and integrity of our
Nation's assisted housing program. I encourage all my colleagues from
both sides of the aisle to vote for the Kennedy amendment.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
We have had discussions, several discussions, with the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] in terms of trying to work out a compromise
that meets the primary concerns that he has and I share, and I would
yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts to describe his understanding
of the agreement that we have just entered into.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. My understanding is that my friend, the
gentleman who is chairman of this committee, has offered on assisted
housing to raise the limit, to strike the 75 percent and include 40
percent, which would, I believe, be a significant improvement in the
number of units that would be targeted to lower income people, and on
public housing he has agreed to raise the limit from 30 to 35 percent
that would go to very-low-income people. And I think that that is an
improvement as well, and I appreciate the gentleman.
Is that the gentleman's understanding of what we just talked about?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Before the gentleman does that, is there an agreement
that someone is proposing?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. There is not as yet an agreement that
we are proposing, Mr. Chairman. We are in a situation where we are
clarifying our understanding.
The CHAIRMAN. If that is the case, then the gentleman from New York
still has 45 seconds remaining.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts
correctly states my understanding as well on what I am willing to
support. I appreciate his cooperation and collaboration.
I would ask for guidance from the Chair whether we need to consider
this en bloc in terms of making the amendment and what the correct
process is.
The CHAIRMAN. What the Chair would request and the reason the Chair
suspended the action just a moment ago is that we would like to have
the agreement in writing so either as an amendment to the existing
amendments en bloc or a clean substitute so that we might accurately be
able to reflect the intent of the agreement legislatively.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. It would be my proposal that,
reflecting the agreement that the two of us just stated, that our
staffs get together and try to write out the language. We will submit
it to the parliamentarian to make certain that it is parliamentarily
correct, and in the interim I would suggest that we continue to have
the debate on some of the larger issues that pertain as well and would
continue to pertain to the issue.
The CHAIRMAN. In the interest of time, the Chair would ask whether or
not the gentleman would like to ask unanimous consent to withdraw this
amendment, to go on the other amendments, if there is indeed an
agreement?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would, but the trouble
is that my amendment is next as well.
We will do this quickly, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from new York [Ms.
Velazquez].
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kennedy
amendment. The far-right minority has inserted a shameful anti-family,
anti-senior, anti-child provision into the housing bill.
H.R. 2406 includes an extreme measure that would eliminate Federal
preferences requiring public housing authorities to give the most needy
families a place to live.
As the Representative of a district with one of the highest
concentration of public housing, I know firsthand how important income
targeting is for the working poor. Yet this legislation will leave
thousands of homeless families and seniors with no hope of finding a
place to live.
Without income targeting, families marking up to $40,000 a year would
have access to public housing while homeless elderly, single mothers
with children, and the poorest families will be left to live out in the
streets.
With such high stake, I cannot think of any justifiable reason to
limit poor people's access to public housing. The Kennedy amendment
will ensure that public housing in available for people who need it
most. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject such
harsh provisions and vote in favor of the Kennedy amendment.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I think we are on the verge of working out an
understanding that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], and
I have reached in terms of appropriate levels of income targeting that
would also provide for substantial flexibility on the part of local
communities to make choices and attain the ultimate goal of income mix
which is so important in terms of viability in our Nation's
communities.
I am thinking about different discussions I have had over the last
few years, particularly those over the past 2 years as chairman of this
housing committee. I remember one in particular with a young lady who
was a resident of a Job Corps center in south Bronx, a very
underprivileged areas.
Mr. Chairman, she was about 19 years old, and I remember her saying
to me, ``Mr. Lazzio, you know, I never knew how to write a check before
I got here, I never knew how to open up a checking account, I never
understood how to create a resume or even what a resume was until I got
to this place, and I am learning the tools to transition back into the
marketplace.''
Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons why there are far too many Americans
who are able to say the same thing is because we are concentrating
poverty in certain areas; we are not achieving the income mix that most
of America is lucky enough and privileged enough to know.
{time} 1345
In an effort to try to achieve a healthier income mix, I think we are
moving in the right direction in terms of the agreement that I believe
we are going to enter into with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy].
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from
Minnesota.
[[Page H4682]]
Mr. VENTO. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I concur with the gentleman in
terms of the concentration of low-income persons in public housing.
Earlier, when the gentleman had a chart on the floor in the past
amendment, I had wanted to point out one of the other phenomena was the
absolute focusing in the early 1980's in terms of trying to serve the
lowest income persons in public housing. That also attributed to that
decline in income, because obviously there are various reasons why
people have low income. It may be a cultural problem.
For instance, in the district I represent, I have a big influx of
Southeast Asians, the Hmong. They simply have not all been able to
afford or gain jobs that pay a lot of income. Their concentration in
public housing, incidentally, has in fact contributed to that type of
phenomenon.
Then the other issue is, of course, the affordability of owner-
occupied housing, which would be all of our preferences. But these
factors have, in fact, been trying to get a mix. The concern that I had
with the gentleman's amendment was not the issue of trying to get a
mix. Indeed, the gentleman is right, local authorities could go down to
very low-income levels. But the phenomenon was, the option was that
they may also do what I would characterize as creaming.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if I could reclaim my time, I
hope the gentleman will support the agreement and compromise that we
are working out together. Also, again, one of the core principles that
we are trying to advance here is that it is one of our responsibilities
here in this body, this House, to assure that we do not just warehouse
the poor, but that we help transform them.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
Mr. VENTO. I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts yielding
time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I think unfortunately what has happened is that low-
income persons have ended up concentrated in the public or assisted
housing programs. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, as I said yesterday, the
housing with most problems in my district is not the public and
assisted housing, but it is the private multifamily dwellings which are
overcrowded and which have such severe problems. So it is quite the
converse.
As I was saying, there are good housing authorities and there are
some that are not so good. We hope that by virtue of this bill, the
gentleman, with his insights, will in fact accomplish a miracle and
make those not so good housing authorities much improved. The fact is
that some are going to improve and some may not. One way they may solve
their problem is by just creaming. If we do not have income targeting,
housing authorities will take those clients that are most likely to be
successful and that have higher incomes. That then leaves others who do
not get the housing assistance with the nonprofits, with the
Government, and on the street in some cases.
Unfortunately, when we think about it, in 1975 we had very little
homelessness. Today we have a significant amount. Things have changed.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my
friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake].
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, this is an important portion of the bill. I think it is
a good thing to see the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking
member come together with an agreement that I think is much fairer than
the original legislation proposed in the committee markup. Clearly, I
think there are those who really do not understand, or do understand
and really do not give credence to the fact, that many persons who
would get vouchers under many of the programs that have been proposed,
regardless of whether the voucher indicates they could go to any
community and trade their voucher in for housing, would be at a major
disadvantage in that there are communities, there are places, where
people would not open their doors readily to them. They would not
respond, for instance, to families that have children because it has
been a history that in many instances, those homes would not be able to
maintain not only the stand of their value, but also in many instances
there would be destruction of those homes.
It seems to me that as we consider the amendment that is now proposed
between the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] and the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], we have moved closer to the direction of
assuring that there is a possibility of those persons who are at the
lowest income level being able to have access to affordable housing,
while at the same time creating an opportunity for persons who can move
into these houses, who have jobs, to be able to create the necessary
kind of environment.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the gentleman remembers, but
several years ago my MINKS program, which was a demonstration project
which was tried in Chicago and other places, essentially spoke to the
kind of concern that the gentleman raised here. It is not that
Democrats do not understand that necessity for trying to have a mixed
population base, but we do not want to be in a position where a local
housing authority can in fact have so much authority that it puts those
persons out who have the greatest needs, while trying to market itself
to bring into those developments individuals who can go to the market
and get adequate housing and can afford to pay for it.
So I hope that we will all support the agreement that the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Lazio] are supporting now.
Mr KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], the former chairman of our
committee.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, historically, public and assisted housing
units were available to every applicant whose income was up to 80
percent of median income.
This policy was changed by the Gramm-Latta Act of 1981, which
restricted eligibility almost entirely to those earning less than 50
percent of median income.
In this amendment we are addressing a separate issue. We are talking
about trying to achieve more economic mix in our privately owned
affordable housing, a house here and a house there.
And we are talking about providing sufficient resources to move
people who have little housing choice in decent and affordable housing.
Most of the families below 30 percent of medium income, the poorest
of the poor, cannot find affordable housing. They have worst case
housing needs.
It is only reasonable that most of the choice-based housing
assistance should be available to those who most need it.
The bill as it now stands would simply discourage the working poor
from seeking self-sufficiency, and it would also bar the doors to those
who are in the greatest need. That kind of approach is completely
contradictory and cannot work.
I urge adoption of the Kennedy amendment.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I would just ask the distinguished ranking member, the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], if he believes that we have
the agreement technically perfected.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. If the gentleman would go ahead and
read the amendment, we will react to it.
amendment offered by mr. lazio of new york to amendment no. 17 offered
by mr. kennedy of massachusetts
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The Clerk will report the
amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Lazio of New York to Amendment No.
17 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts:
Page 1 of the amendment, line 3, strike ``75 percent'' and
insert ``40 percent''.
At the end of the amendment insert the following:
In section 222 of the bill (as amended by the manager's
amendment), strike subsection (c) (relating to income mix)
and insert the following new subsection:
(c) Income Mix.--
(1) LHMA income mix.--Of the public housing dwelling units
of a local housing and
[[Page H4683]]
management authority made available for occupancy after the
date of the enactment of this Act not less than 35 percent
shall be occupied by low-income families whose incomes do not
exceed 30 percent of the area median income, as determined by
the Secretary with adjustments for smaller and larger
families, except that the Secretary, may for purposes of this
subsection, establish income ceiling higher or lower than 30
percent of the median for the area on the basis of the
Secretary's findings that such variations are necessary
because of unusually high or low family incomes.
(2) Prohibition of concentration of low-income families.--A
local housing and management authority may not comply with
the requirements under paragraph (1) by concentrating very
low-income families (or other families with relatively low
incomes) in public housing dwelling units in certain public
housing developments or certain buildings within
developments. The Secretary may review the income and
occupancy characteristics of the public housing developments,
and the buildings of such developments, of local housing and
management authorities to ensure compliance with the
provisions of this paragraph.
Mr. LAZIO of New York (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment to the amendment be considered as
read and reprinted in the Record.
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, this amendment represents the
agreement between myself and the distinguished ranking member, the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], that would effectively
target the poorest people.
The original amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Kennedy] would have targeted 75 percent of the choice-based
vouchers and certificate to those below 30 percent. My amendment would
amend that and would insert in its place ``40 percent,'' so 40 percent
of all the vouchers and certificates would be targeted to those below
30 percent of median income, which is, of course, the poorest of the
poor.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think we are going to do the en bloc amendment
right now.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, my understanding from the
parliamentarian was that we could in fact do both the amendments in
combination. Maybe we can just ask the Chairman whether or not we can
do that. I thought the amendment as drafted accomplished both: a 40-
percent limit on the vouchers to people with incomes under 30 percent
of income, and 35 percent of the units of public housing to go to
people within 30 percent of median income.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman correctly reflects the amendment, the agreement that we
entered into and the amendment that is at the desk that in fact does do
both. I had just one page in front of me.
The amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] would actually amend that 75 percent to
read 40 percent of the vouchers and certificates would go to the bottom
30 percent of the population, and in terms of public housing, not less
than 35 percent of the units in public housing would go to families
whose incomes do not exceed 30 percent of the area medium income, which
I believe represents the understanding between the gentleman from
Massachusetts and myself and preserves both of our principles of
equity, and also flexibility at the same time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Lazio] seek to have his amendment adopted as a modification by
unanimous consent to the Kennedy amendment?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I do make that unanimous consent request.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to modifying the Kennedy
amendment by the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Lazio] ?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Kennedy amendment is so modified.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] as modified.
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendment to title II of
the bill?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word. Because of the fact that we had anticipated using a full hour on
the previous amendment, and then a second amendment that I was going to
offer that had been collapsed, the gentlewoman from New York [Ms.
Velazquez] has been contacted to come over from her office to offer her
amendment. She is on her way.
If we could just discuss, I think, some of the important aspects that
are contained in this bill, I want to, as I say, commend the chairman
of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], for some
of the provisions which are going to allow this bill to make certain
that bad public housing will be closed by the Secretary, to get rid of
bad public housing projects at the same time. I saw the Secretary last
evening and he mentioned the fact that he has been able to shut down
over 30,000 individual housing units over the course of the last year.
For that I think he ought to be commended.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that my good friend, the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Vento], has an amendment which he is now prepared to
offer.
amendment no. 36 offered by mr. vento
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer amendment
No. 36 out of order at this time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] for the consideration of an
amendment under title V at this stage of the reading of the bill?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, we will go to
consideration of the gentleman's amendment without prejudice to other
title II amendments.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 36 offered by Mr. Vento: Page 239, line 11,
strike ``fiscal year 1996'' and insert ``fiscal years 1997,
1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001''.
Page 239, line 25, after the period insert`` '.''.
Page 240, strike lines 1 through 4.
Page 240, strike line 17 and the matter following such line
and insert the following:
``Sec. 5130 Funding.''
modification of amendment offered by mr. vento
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification of amendment offered by Mr. Vento: In the
instruction for Page 239, line 11, strike out ``, 1998'' and
all that follows, and insert ``and 1998''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Minnesota?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman,
the original discussion I had with the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Vento], and I believe we just had consultations with the staff, is that
the agreement was to extend this through 1997 and 1998.
Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman
is correct.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk strike out the
``1999'' as well.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, that change will be
considered as read.
There was no objection.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the modification
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
{time} 1400
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The amendment is so
modified.
[[Page H4684]]
Pursuant to the order of the Committee of Wednesday, May 8, 1996, the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] will control 5 minutes, and a
member opposed will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, obviously there is an opportunity here with the
acceptance of the modified Kennedy amendment I am targeting. I thank my
colleague from New York for his work, and my colleague from
Massachusetts.
This is a simple amendment. I think that most Members have come to
realize the importance of trying to provide funding for activities that
relate to drug and crime prevention in and around or in public housing.
Recently we revised that to provide an extension outside of public
housing. This amendment would do that.
This COMPAC program is an improved drug elimination program that
expires under this bill at the end of this fiscal year, 1996. We had
initially thought that the amendment should be for the full
authorization of the bill which is years. So I had sought to in fact
provide a 5-year authorization for COMPAC. But in consultation with the
subcommittee chairman, he felt that a 2-year authorization would be
best for this program so that it would be before us in the next
Congress, and I concurred with that. That is why we modified the
amendment accordingly.
I just wanted to explain that I initially had offered this amendment
in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and at that point
we were not ready to make this particular decision. But this is a very
successful program in terms of trying to, in fact, expend some monies
in and around public housing, giving the authorities a regularized
funding for crime prevention.
Up until this point it has been based on a categorical program. This
will put it on a block grant proposal, which I think is appealing to
the new majority. We had actually proposed and passed this last year in
the 103d Congress as a block granted program to provide regular funding
for this important function.
Under this amendment, 85 percent of the appropriate funds would be
allocated to the largest housing authorities, with 10 percent going to
smaller housing authorities, usually in exurban or suburban or rural
areas, and 5 percent to the private sector and assisted housing areas.
I just would point out the success of this program in Providence, RI,
in Denver, CO, certainly in my own district and in other areas.
This amendment would extend the improved drug elimination program
that expires under this bill at the end of this fiscal year. The
current Public Housing Drug Elimination Program [PHDEP] provides a
range of prevention and education programs to encourage residents to
join together to fight crime and foster a safe environment for public
housing youth. The activities it has fostered include: community
policing, employing security guards, supporting resident patrols, youth
sports, recreation and education activities as alternative to gang
activities, and other physical plant improvements like street lights.
I offered an amendment in the Banking Committee last November to
continue the drug elimination program and to refocus it to include the
deterrence of all types of criminal activities in and around public and
assisted housing; 85 percent of appropriated funds would be allocated
on a formula basis between those authorities that manage 250 or more
units of housing to address or prevent significant crime problems. The
remaining funds are available for competition for smaller housing
authorities and other federally assisted housing.
Some may suggest that this program can just as easily be funded out
of general operating assistance--a position that in the long-run, won't
hold. Housing authorities are already facing a sort of Hobson's choice
when it comes to programs and activities. Crime prevention activities
requires continuity and consistent funding. Crime prevention activities
help preserve the valuable housing stock and the mission of housing
authorities. These activities deserve Federal prioritization. Further,
COMPAC funds would provide credible measurable Federal funds to
leverage support and other funding from local agencies.
Let me tell you of some of the successes of this program that our
communities cannot afford to sacrifice:
Providence, RI: Used the funds for drug prevention youth activities,
resident screening, enhanced security with resident crime watches and a
partnership with local police. Law enforcement activities have
increased 37 percent over fiscal year 1994 in fiscal year 1995. Total
arrests have increased more than 85 percent in the same period.
Property crimes have decreased by 15 percent.
Denver, CO: Used the fund to establish storefront centers which
provide visible, nonthreatening activity centers for residents with
community outreach and other program activities. Centers are staffed by
residents and police officers. Between 1993 and 1994, there was a 26-
percent reduction in the number of crimes reported in Denver's public
housing communities.
St. Paul, MN: The No. 1 large PHA in the country, St. Paul's Public
Housing Authority, has had an extremely successful and positive
experience with the drug elimination program. Their A Community
Outreach Policing Program [ACOP] has built bridges between the
community and the police department. Lines of communication have opened
and trust has been built through police officers, interpreters, and
social workers that have gotten to know housing residents and staff
through youth activities, crisis intervention, and traditional law
enforcement efforts. The Boys and Girls Club of St. Paul has offered
youth activities: field trips, tutoring, computer activities, drug
education, summer camp, and other counseling and guidance.
When the St. Paul PHA did not win a grant in the last round of
funding, the authority had to choose to cuts staff positions in order
to keep the program that was so well received by the community and
residents alike. That situation will face each and every authority
should this program disappear entirely and there are only so many staff
positions that can be cut before the critical community activities of
the program are lost or the housing resource is jeopardized by under
staffing and cut services.
My colleagues, we heard support for maintaining this program over the
past year from witnesses testifying on behalf of Indian Housing and
from the National Assisted Housing Management Association. Evaluations
of the program, including an in-depth study by Abt Associates, have
found that many grantees have achieved significant success. The current
program received $290 million in appropriations from this Congress in
1996, not because it didn't work, but because it does work.
If my amendment is enacted, COMPAC will be able to compete for the
limited appropriations as an authorized program. The program would
assure that we maintain existing housing stock. We can't maintain just
physical facilities but instead must address the conduct of those
within and around public housing. COMPAC should continue to be a
resource to help communities with crime and drug prevention and to
improve the quality of life for public housing residents and their
surrounding neighborhoods.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
With that said, and since there is agreement with the amendment, I
want to thank my colleagues for their support of it and yield to the
chairman of the committee.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Minnesota. I appreciate his collaboration, cooperation, and the comity
in which we were able to work this out to reflect his interest and
mine, as we go forward to the next 2 or 3 years for a program that has
funded many important, many worthwhile items that have had the result
of protecting people in public and assisted housing.
So it is my pleasure to be able to come to an agreement with the
gentleman. I am in support of this amendment and I urge my colleagues
to support it, as well.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Kennedy], the ranking member.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to just pay very
strong compliments to my good friend from Minnesota, Mr. Vento, who has
just done a tremendous job not only on this amendment but on so many
housing issues over the year.
He has led the fight in this House of Representatives over the last
decade to look out for the homeless people of this country. He knows
housing law like no other individual in the Congress, and he has paid
closer attention to some of the goings on over at HUD like no other
Member of Congress. He deserves tremendous respect from both sides of
the aisle for the contributions he has made.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I have had my sucrose
level for the day now.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members for their support and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment, as
[[Page H4685]]
modified, offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
amendments no. 33 and 34 offered by ms. velazquez
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
The text of the amendments is as follows:
Amendments No. 33 and 34 offered by Ms. Velazquez:
Amendment No. 33: Page 77, strikes lines 6 through 14 and
insert the following:
(A) except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C), shall
be an amount determined by the authority, which shall not
exceed $25;
(B) in cases in which a family demonstrates that payment of
the amount determined under subparagraph (A) would create
financial hardship on the family, as determined pursuant to
guidelines which the Secretary shall establish, shall be an
amount less than the amount determined under subparagraph (A)
(as determined pursuant to such guidelines); and
(C) in such other circumstances as may be provided by the
authority, shall be an amount less than the amount determined
under subparagraph (A).
Amendment No. 34: Page 157, line 10, after the semicolon
insert ``and''.
Page 157, strike lines 11 through 18 and insert the
following new paragraph:
(2)(A) except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C),
shall be an amount determined by the authority, which shall
not exceed $25;
(B) in cases in which a family demonstrates that payment of
the amount determined under subparagraph (A) would create
financial hardship on the family, as determined pursuant to
guidelines which the Secretary shall establish, shall be an
amount less than the amount determined under subparagraph (A)
(as determined pursuant to such guidelines); and
(C) in such other circumstances as may be provided by the
authority, shall be an amount less than the amount determined
under subparagraph (A).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to consideration of the
amendments during title II?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the Committee on
Wednesday, May 8, 1996, the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez]
and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez].
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2406 is the latest attack on poor families, the
elderly and children. This bill includes provisions that will threaten
every American's most basic and human need: Access to affordable
housing.
Already across this Nation 5 million households spend more than half
of their income on rent. This legislation increases that burden by
imposing a minimum rent of $25 to $50 a month. Although that may not
seem like much, it is a fortune for many residents who have no income.
My amendment ensures that needy Americans are not evicted from their
homes by limiting the maximum rent to no more than $25. Additionally,
my amendment provides a hardship exemption in cases where poor
Americans have no income, protecting children, seniors and the disabled
from being thrown out in the streets. I will urge its adoption.
The faces behind my amendment are the most vulnerable members of our
society. More than half are single mothers with children. They are
families climbing out of homelessness and people trying to lift
themselves out of a life substance abuse. They are teetering on the
brink of pulling themselves up. My amendment holds out the hand that
would steady them.
In many States a mother and her one child may only receive $130 a
month to live off of. Keeping in mind how expensive basic living
necessities like diapers, toothpaste or even soap are, a $50 minimum
rent is simply too high for many poor families to afford.
The consequences of today's actions will create an underclass of
people too poor to even live in public housing. Worse yet, with
reduction for homeless shelters, the poorest of the poor will have no
place to go. For a Nation that is supposed to be a leader in the
industrial world, that is appealing and disgraceful.
Mr. Chairman, we are asking too high a price from the poor. I call on
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for the Velazquez
amendment and end this cruel measure.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, what was filed as the two of Ms.
Velazquez' amendments are considered en bloc, am I correct?
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. They are en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. That is the Chair's understanding.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I thank the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York rise in
opposition?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for her concern
and her attention to this issue.
Let me begin by saying that for those people who are so poor that
they cannot afford a minimum $25 rent, we have provided in our
manager's amendment a hardship exemption. We worked this issue out with
the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Henry
Cisneros, to allow a safety valve for people who are so poor that they
cannot even afford $25.
But Mr. Chairman, we believe that everybody should pay something. We
believe that is part of transforming a society. We believe that within
the confines of allowing for hardship exemptions, that we ought to have
minimum rents.
As a matter of fact, current law as passed through the last
appropriations, the omnibus appropriations bill, fixes the need for
minimum rents. What we do here is to go beyond that and allow for a
hardship exemption.
We also suggested the hardship exemption ought to be controlled by
local communities, not by the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development hundreds of miles away in a centralized bureaucratic
building where he is going to decide how much of an exemption people
should have.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I just want to make an inquiry, in terms of the
manager's amendment, where in your amendment does it state that it will
require the housing authority to grant an exemption?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I will reclaim my time and I
will try and identify that part as I continue to speak here.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, everybody should pay something but we should
also protect the most vulnerable people. We have done that through a
number of different ways, including working with members of the
minority and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], and making sure
that any possible minimum rent increase is phased in, so there are
phase-in protections.
But we cannot transform a culture if we expect people to live without
any reciprocity, without paying anything at all. We expect everybody to
pay minimum rents because that pool of money helps provide more
opportunities for more people to have access to apartments.
The more that we say that people should not have to do anything,
should not have any minimum rent, whether it is $25 or $30 or whether
through hardship exemption it is reduced to $10 or $5, the more than we
are continuing to perpetuate a culture that suggests that people should
be able to get, Americans should be able to get an apartment for
virtually nothing, not pay the utility bills, not pay for any rent,
live for nothing and not have to budget anything, having to budget for
an apartment, having to budget for their household, having to budget
for, if they are a home owner, if they were lucky enough to be a home
owner, is part of transforming themselves and moving back into the work
force.
We are trying to do that through minimum rents which we think are
very modest, with exceptional hardship exemptions, with the ability to
transition and phase in.
For the purpose of trying to respond to the gentlewoman's concern, I
draw
[[Page H4686]]
her attention to page 33 of the manager's amendment, beginning on the
bottom of the page, lines 24 and 25, all the way through page 34, line
10 or 11. If the gentlewoman would like, if it is helpful, I will read
from that if she does not have that.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I could read it to the gentleman, but it does not say
that it will require. It says that the housing authority may. That does
not mean that we require them to grant an exemption, and that is
precisely the difference between my amendment and the manager's
amendment. Mine requires the housing authority top grant an exemption,
yours gives them an option.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Reclaiming my time, I suggest that a housing
must grant an exemption to everybody, which I believe is what the
gentlewoman is saying, is to completely eliminate the meaning of having
a minimum rent. We are saying that in certain circumstances that the
housing authority will have the discretion to provide for an exemption.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I do agree with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity that everybody in public housing should pay. My
amendment does not relate to that. My amendment, what it does is to
protect those most vulnerable who do not have any money to pay, and we
need to protect those people from being thrown out in the streets.
My amendment requires the housing authority to grant an exemption.
Your amendment does not provide for that, and that is why we need to
protect those people who are disabled, who do not have any money, who
are coming from homelessness, from being thrown out in the streets.
{time} 1415
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Jackson].
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Velazquez amendment, which sets a minimum of zero to $25 and a waiver
for our Nation's most vulnerable who are caught in situations of
extreme difficulty or hardship.
We must oppose the idea of minimum rent for those who cannot afford
it. HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros has already indicated that the
recently implemented $25 rents are already causing great hardship for
roughly 175,000 families in public and assisted housing nationwide.
In my State of 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 affected 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, necessities that we obviously take for granted.
The chairman of the subcommittee says that everyone should pay
something. Who can argue with that? Except in my State, 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 5,100 elderly in
Illinois. It would mean an average increase of $569, or a 19-percent
increase for 1,100 disabled people.
Mr. Chairman, the poor in our Nation do not need any more regulations
in their minimum rents. They need a livable wage.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for offering this
critical amendment, and I urge Members to support it.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Baker], a member of the
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity.
Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his
courtesy. I think this amendment really goes to the heart of the debate
over how public housing should be managed in America. There is probably
nothing more volatile with working families in America today than the
thought that someone would be in need and not have a helping hand
extended. Virtually everybody I talk to says if they are suffering,
uneducated and want an education, if they are homeless and want to be
safe in the evenings, we should do those things. All we ask is that
those individuals extend the courtesy to us of trying to improve their
own situation.
But when you have people who live in house trailers, working a
construction job, and moms at home trying to educate and care for those
children, and you told them well, I tell you what, since you are having
a bad month, I am the trailer park operator, I am just going to not
worry about rent this month even though you are paying $25, where is
the equity in that family who works to pay taxes from daylight until
dark, who cares for the kids, who pays for the expenses at the grocery
stores, who pays the rent on the house trailer, to say to them we are
going to tax you at higher and higher rates and put money in government
programs so there will be individuals who cannot read, but will not go
to school; people without work, who will not get job skills?
This is a revolution. It is a dramatic change in the philosophy of
how we are going to try to help people. We are simply going to say you
try, we will try. If you make the effort, we will give you the
resources. But no longer are we going to say we are going to tax
working families in America and provide free housing for individuals,
with free utilities, with access to food programs, when you will not
insist that your children remain in school, when dad will not go to a
drug rehab program, and mom not get out and try to get her own job to
help.
In many cases, a small helping hand is not giving more money; it is
giving opportunity, the opportunity for that individual to regain their
own dignity and honor, the decency of work, the ability to get an
education, and to walk in the front door and say to his children, here
are your tennis shoes, I worked for them, I earned them, and I want to
give them to you to provide for a better America. It is regrettable, it
is despicable that we have generations of families who have grown up on
programs of social dependency, and the only model they have is that dad
no longer lives at home, mom goes to the mailbox and gets a check, and
they live in public housing where they literally board themselves in
behind the door at night because they are afraid of someone breaking in
during the evening and stealing what little they have.
We have to find a way to give dignity decency, and safety back to
these individuals. And the safeguard for those who are worried that 83
cents a day, $25 a month, is too much a commitment to ask from someone
who has got a shelter for their family? The housing authority may, upon
a demonstration of hardship, grant a waiver to that family and not
require them to pay that onerous 83 cents a day rent, for whatever
period of time the housing authority determines is necessary. But
nowhere should we say that anyone is entitled to free housing forever.
Make some demonstration that you want to improve your personal
circumstance and we will be there to help you. We will make sure that
the drug dealers are out of your housing authority. We will make sure
that your kids have a safe school to go to. We will make sure there is
a job training program available to you, so you can get that job. But
America is saying to us, stop throwing money away at faster and faster
rates because we are not helping, we are in fact making it worse.
Ms. VELAQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I just would like to say that what is despicable is a single
mother with one child in Louisiana, who gets a $130 check from AFDC, is
thrown out into the street, and the gentleman cannot understand what
$25 represents for her and her child.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
gentlewoman yielding me time. I stand in strong support of her
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I think it has been interesting to listen to some of
the plantation owner mentality we are hearing from the other side of
the aisle. The notion that these individuals are somehow desiring to
stay in the circumstances that they are in by their
[[Page H4687]]
own choice represents a complete misunderstanding of who qualifies for
minimum rents. We already have, by virtue of the fact that we have the
Brooke amendment, which no longer exists, deleted. What happens is all
of those incentives that the Republicans so very much want to whip the
poor into shape are now in place in the housing bill.
What this says is that if you have high medical expenses, if you
happen to have a sick child, if you happen to have some extraordinary
circumstances where you do not have the funds to be able to even pay a
minimum rent, the 30 percent is not good enough. We are going to come
back in and we are going to hammer not the very poor, but the very,
very poor.
That is what the heart of this amendment does. This amendment tries
to say that there is a group of very, very poor people. I understand
that maybe the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Baker] does not know very
many of them, but the truth of the matter is that there are others in
this Chamber, the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velaquez] among them,
that work with these individuals each and every day, and she deserves
and they deserve a right to get the housing that they need.
Ms. VELAQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Owens].
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the gentleman here
comes from a farm State or not, but the people in my district want to
know how you have a situation where farmers' home loan mortgages are
forgiven. Over a 5-year period, the Department of Agriculture forgave
$11 billion; $11 billion were forgiven in farmers' home loan mortgages.
They want to know how our Government does such things, and then worries
about people who do not have $25.
I met a lady just last Monday, I have known her for a long time, I
did not know she was in such hard times, 85 years old she is. She has
always been a tenacious entrepreneur all her life. She has never worked
for anybody else. She does not have Social Security. She once owned a
home, she lost it. She once had two children, they are dead now.
Eighty-five years old. She has no income. Zero income.
When we say 30 percent of your income, the Brooke amendment we fought
for, 30 percent, 30 percent of nothing is nothing, of course. But most
of us, nobody in this Congress pays 30 percent of their income for
rent. Nobody pays 30 percent of their income for rent. That is enough
of a standard that is imposed on the poor that nobody else has to live
up to.
Certainly anybody who has come to the point where they absolutely
have no income, and there are many people who, for very good reasons,
they are not drunkards or dope addicts, there is nothing wrong with
them, they are hard-working Americans, at the ends of their lives, down
and out, they need some help.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the United States Housing Act
(H.R. 2406). This bill would, in effect, lead to the dismantling of the
Federal Government's role in providing safe, decent, and affordable
housing to its citizens. H.R. 2406 does a good job of corroding what
the Republican leadership in the other chamber has termed, ``one of the
last bastions of socialism''--public housing. Agriculture, which
funnels billions of dollars to agribusiness, is neve seen as socialism;
but now public housing is bastardized as the last bastion of socialism.
Using such euphemisms as local flexibility, income diversity, and
resident security, H.R. 2406 would shamefully take from our poorer and
more vulnerable citizens the basic right to sleep comfortably at night.
I support many of the amendments offered today, including the Velaquez
amendment.
My Republican colleagues need to be reminded that U.S. public housing
policy is embarrassingly inequitable. Despite the low-income housing
needs of this country, only 20 percent of housing outlays is allocated
for providing housing assistance and subsidies to families in need. The
other 80 percent is tax expenditures enjoyed by wealthier families who
are able to deduct mortgage interest, property taxes, capital gains,
and other investor homeowner perks from their tax liabilities. The
result of this unjust, inequitable housing policy: Over 70 percent of
the families who qualify for low-income housing assistance, are not
receiving it. This means that the richest Nation in the world has
allowed, and will continue to allow, more than 20 million families to
simply deal with substandard housing conditions with serious building
code violations such as dangerous electrical wiring and inadequate
plumbing; exorbitant rents; and even homelessness.
H.R. 2406 reflects a blatant disregard for those Americans who truly
need assistance. Using income diversity as a goal, the manager's
amendment would reserve only 30 percent of public housing units for
those earning 30 percent or less of the median income in an area. Under
current law, 85 percent of public housing units must be provided to
low-income families. In most communities, 30 percent of the area's
median income is roughly equivalent to the poverty line. However, the
Republican solution to diversify the public-housing population is too
extreme. To reserve such a small percentage of public housing to our
poorest families, when they need it the most, is unforgivable. Again,
the affront to the less-fortunate is evident in this Congress.
H.R. 2406 would further eliminate the caps on rent paid by seniors
and working families. The Brooke amendment, which sets a maximum
percentage that tenants could be charged for rent, 30 percent of
adjusted gross income, would be abolished. The manager's amendment
would maintain the 30 percent cap only for current elderly and disabled
tenants, and current residents earning 30 percent or less of an area's
median income. It is clearly insufficient. Any elderly or disabled
person who is lucky enough to secure public housing after enactment of
this bill, would be forced to sacrifice food, medicine, and other
necessities for rent.
Furthermore, H.R. 2406 would allow housing authorities to set minimum
rents at $25 to $50 a month, without any exception for hardship cases.
To individuals who make more than $100,000 per year, a minimum rent of
$25 to $50 may seem reasonable. Such reasoning illustrates how far
removed from reality supporters of this bill really are from the people
they represent. For the State of New York, a $50 minimum rent would
affect 900 households, and a $25 minimum rent would affect 1,828
households. For homeless families utilizing special rent assistance,
but who have no income, this minimum rent would be a hardship. For
large families receiving AFDC in low-benefit States, this minimum rent
would be a hardship. For families, elderly and disabled households
awaiting determination of eligibility for public benefits, this minimum
would be a hardship. Yes, many of the people that we represent have
little to no income at all; and this Congress should be compassionate
enough to grant these families some leeway.
Support the Valazquez amendment to set a minimum rent of $0 to $25;
and to allow for a waiver in cases of extreme hardship.
And in an interesting twist, H.R. 2406 would mandate that all able-
bodied, non elderly individuals work in some capacity for the local
housing authority. In a despicable regard for the value of the work
that such persons may perform, H.R. 2406 would exempt these workers'
wages from the Davis-Bacon prevailing-wage requirement. The assurance
that a job is a real job that pays a living wage and provides certain
benefits is on the attack, again. I ask my colleagues to stand up to
this typical Republican contempt for the American work ethic.
Last year, some Republicans promised to mount an aggressive campaign
to eliminate the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD].
Recognizing that such action would be politically damaging, this year,
the Republicans have weakened the agency's responsibilities, and
eliminated numerous federal controls. Thus, they have defeated the
economic, social, and historical purpose of the Federal Government's
direct role in developing affordable housing. Yes, HUD will still be
around, but 60 years of it's work will have been ignored. H.R. 2406 has
little to do with ensuring housing for the low income. I challenge my
colleagues to vote against this apparent disdain for nonwealthy
Americans; and support the Valazquez amendment.
Ms. VALAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida [Ms. Brown].
(Ms. BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Valazquez amendment, which sets a minimum rent of up to $25, and allows
for a waiver to be granted in cases of extreme hardship.
In Florida, a $50 minimum rent will affect 2.100 households. This
would mean an average annual rent increase of $340. That may not seem
like a lot of money to some of my wealthy colleagues in Congress, but
for some of our Nation's public housing residents, that could mean the
difference between buying a child a warm winter coat, or buying that
same child the correct-size shoes. This truly is a matter of having
food on the table, clothes on their backs, and a roof over their heads.
[[Page H4688]]
Public housing in our Nation is the last resort for many of our
citizens. It is the final safety net before low-income folks end up
homeless and on the street. If we can make some responsible and
appropriate changes in the current law to improve public housing, by
all means, let's do it.
Many of the people who reside in public housing are low-income
veterans. Forty-one percent of residents in public and assisted housing
are seniors or are disabled. The remainder are families with children.
This Congress should be doing everything it can to provide safe,
affordable, units for our Nation's low-income citizens. That's the kind
thing to do. That's the compassionate thing to do. That's the right
thing to do. Support the amendment.
Ms. VALAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, I want to thank the
gentlewoman from New York for her wisdom.
Mr. Chairman, I heard my colleague on the other side of the aisle say
this is a revolution. It is a revolution, and the only wounded and
dying are poor people. It is well known and the Texas Low Income
Housing Coalition and the Border Low-Income Housing Coalition has sent
me some very interesting facts. Nationwide public housing residents
have extremely low incomes, averaging only 17 percent of the median.
The rest are zero. We recognize that it is important to have affordable
housing, to have mixed housing units where there are affordable housing
units living among those very poor. If you do not take this amendment
that the gentlewoman has offered, in Texas alone you will be affecting
18,200 households. I did not say people, I said 18,200 households. To
the least of our brothers and sisters, can we not say if you have zero
income, if you worked all your life, if all has come down crashing on
you, you have the opportunity to have housing?
What is the look on our faces when we see homeless persons? We ask
the question, ``What have they done wrong? Why don't they get a job?''
We do not know their circumstances. And the reason we have homeless
persons is because there are 15,000 of them waiting on lists in Texas
and other places around the country to get into public housing. There
is a need to ensure that the poorest among us can pay a minimal amount,
have a clean house, a clean place to live, and, yes, they will keep it
up. I support the gentlewoman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment.
Affordable housing fills a void in our society for our less fortunate
citizens who would not have homes without subsidies. H.R. 2406 is
seriously lacking as it is currently written. It kills off the Brooke
amendment which insured the affordability of public housing.
In my State of Texas, as the bill is currently written, if a minimum
rent of $50 was charged it would affect 18,200 households, who would be
hit by an average annual rent increase of $267--this is a lot for very
poor people. A minimum rent of $25 would affect 15,749 households, for
those using certificates, vouchers, and project-based section 8
housing, and is far more terrible.
The elitist of this body would say that $25 or $50 is not very much
to ask for a place to live, but those of us who know the plight of the
poor in our States, cities, and districts know better.
Texas Low Income Housing Coalition and Border Low Income
Housing Coalition
Austin and Laredo, TX, May 6, 1996.
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Lee: Your vote this Wednesday on the
``U.S. Housing Act of 1995'' will set a new course for
federal public housing in this country. We seek your support
for preservation of the Brooke Amendment and the enactment of
strong low income targets when this bill moves to the floor
of the House. We ask that you vote against the provisions of
H.R. 2406 which repeal the Brooke Amendment.
H.R. 2406 repeals the Brooke Amendment for all residents of
public housing and recipients of Section 8 tenant based
rental assistance. This repeal is a dramatic departure from
25 years of housing policy during which time a tenant's rent
contribution has been linked to the tenant's income. Since
1981 public housing and rental assistance programs have set
tenant rent at 30% of the resident's adjusted gross income.
The House bill repeals this important protection and puts in
its place language which will permit public housing
management agencies to set rents as they deem it appropriate.
Nationwide public housing residents have extremely low
incomes averaging only 17% of the median income of the area
where they live. Contrary to what proponents of repeal might
suggest, the Brooke Amendment did not cause poverty in public
housing. Our organizations strongly oppose the repeal of the
Brooke Amendment and the eradication of meaningful income
targets because of the harm this would do to low income
Texans.
Changes in the occupancy of public housing occurred long
before the enactment of the Brooke Amendment in 1970. Social
changes in the 1950s and 1960s caused major alterations in
the prevalence of very poor families living in public
housing. This was compounded by the tendency of localities to
situate projects in poorer, isolated or otherwise undesirable
areas. The people left behind in the public housing projects
after the demographic shifts of the post-war era were largely
the long term poor. A federal cap on rents at 30% of income
is just as important today, to ensure that no family is too
poor to live in public housing. There is no market rate
housing available to families with such low incomes.
H.R. 2406 would also allocate only 25% of new admissions to
families with incomes below 30% of median. The majority of
available units could go to families earning up to 80% of the
area median. We also oppose this provision. All of the
Section 8 rental assistance subsidy could be targeted to
families up to 80% of the area median. According to HUD's
list of median incomes for 1996, 80% of the median for a
family of four in Dallas, Houston and San Antonio is $38,650,
$36,800 and $28,800 respectively. The government does not
need to provide public housing to families with incomes this
high. That job should be left to the private market.
The resolution of these two fundamental issues will
determine who these units will serve for the foreseeable
future. Your support for a 30% cap on rents and appropriate
income targeting will be crucial to preserving these
subsidized housing opportunities for the Texas families that
so urgently need them.
Sincerely,
John Henneberger,
Chair, Texas Low Income Housing Coalition.
Rafael Torres,
Convenor, Border Low Income Housing Coalition.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the poor across this country have already been asked to
pay an extraordinarily high price. Essential programs like Medicare,
Medicaid, and Workforce have all been put on the chopping block. At a
time when society's most vulnerable are seeing a reduction in their
benefits, an increasing amount of rent to pay is cruel, heartless and
shameful.
If we do not adopt the Velazquez amendment, thousands of our Nation's
poorest families will no longer be able to afford public housing. For
the most part, they will be mothers and children, women and children,
that will be thrown into the streets with no place to go.
We here in Congress should not be creating this underclass. It is a
shame that what we are doing here today is creating an underclass of
poor people that cannot afford even to live in public housing. If we do
not want the poorest of the poor to live in public housing, just say
it. Stop playing games, and let us end this charade.
{time} 1430
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of
my time.
Mr. Chairman, I will tell my colleagues what is cruel, what is
heartless, and what is shameful. It is defending the status quo. It is
continuing to condemn Americans throughout the country, especially in
our inner-cities, to continue life in poverty, despair, and
disillusion.
We are trying to transform our society, Mr. Chairman. We are trying
to do that in a compassionate way. We understand this will not happen
overnight. We understand this bill will not change the problems that
have made these challenges so complex and sometimes overwhelming with
the strike of a pen. But it begins the process of progress, of
returning local control, of encouraging work and providing work
incentives, of providing for mixed-income populations in public and
assisted housing so that the working poor will no longer be taxed, will
no longer be punished, and they will be permitted to stay in public
housing.
[[Page H4689]]
Mr. Chairman, we here are saying that it is not the Secretary of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development sitting in his office in
Washington who will decide what an exemption will be, although we
provide for an exemption, Mr. Chairman. We say that every family should
pay at least a minimum rent of $25 to $50, and that is the current law.
There is already a minimum rent in place through the appropriations
process. What we are adding to that, Mr. Chairman, is an escape valve,
a hardship exemption so that those Americans who cannot even make the
rent of $25 for their family's apartment will be able to appeal to
their local community and be able to receive an exemption, an
exception, so that rent can be lowered or completely waived.
We know that there are some Americans out there that will not be able
to make the minimum rent. That is why we have the hardship exemption
that was worked out with the administration. But we are going well
beyond that. We are trying to eliminate the concept of having the
minimum rent, and having the minimum rent is as basic as eliminating
the work disincentives in the Brooke amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired. The question is on the amendments
offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and
pending that I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the
amendments offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez]
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Are there further amendments to title II?
If not, the Clerk will designate title III.
The text of title III is as follows:
TITLE III--CHOICE-BASED RENTAL HOUSING AND HOMEOWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE FOR
LOW-INCOME FAMILIES
Subtitle A--Allocation
SEC. 301. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE HOUSING ASSISTANCE AMOUNTS.
To the extent that amounts to carry out this title are made
available, the Secretary may enter into contracts with local
housing and management authorities for each fiscal year to
provide housing assistance under this title.
SEC. 302. CONTRACTS WITH LHMA'S.
(a) Condition of Assistance.--The Secretary may provide
amounts under this title to a local housing and management
authority for a fiscal year only if the Secretary has entered
into a contract under this section with the local housing and
management authority, under which the Secretary shall provide
such authority with amounts (in the amount of the allocation
for the authority determined pursuant to section 304) for
housing assistance under this title for low-income families.
(b) Use for Housing Assistance.--A contract under this
section shall require a local housing and management
authority to use amounts provided under this title to provide
housing assistance in any manner authorized under this title.
(c) Annual Obligation of Authority.--A contract under this
title shall provide amounts for housing assistance for 1
fiscal year covered by the contract.
(d) Enforcement of Housing Quality Requirements.--Each
contract under this section shall require the local housing
and management authority administering assistance provided
under the contract--
(1) to ensure compliance, under each housing assistance
payments contract entered into pursuant to the contract under
this section, with the provisions of the housing assistance
payments contract included pursuant to section 351(c)(4); and
(2) to establish procedures for assisted families to notify
the authority of any noncompliance with such provisions.
SEC. 303. ELIGIBILITY OF LHMA'S FOR ASSISTANCE AMOUNTS.
The Secretary may provide amounts available for housing
assistance under this title to a local housing and management
authority only if--
(1) the authority has submitted a local housing management
plan to the Secretary for such fiscal year and applied to the
Secretary for such assistance;
(2) 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;
(3) the authority is accredited under section 433 by the
Housing Foundation and Accreditation Board;
(5) no member of the board of directors or other governing
body of the authority, or the executive director, has been
convicted of a felony; and
(6) the authority has not been disqualified for assistance
pursuant to subtitle B of title IV.
SEC. 304. ALLOCATION OF AMOUNTS.
(a) Formula Allocation.--
(1) In general.--When amounts for assistance under this
title are first made available for reservation, after
reserving amounts in accordance with subsection (c) and
section 109, the Secretary shall allocate such amounts, only
among local housing and management authorities meeting the
requirements under this title to receive such assistance, on
the basis of a formula that is established in accordance with
paragraph (2) and based upon appropriate criteria to reflect
the needs of different States, areas, and communities, using
the most recent data available from the Bureau of the Census
of the Department of Commerce and 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. The Secretary may establish a minimum
allocation amount, in which case only the local housing and
management authorities that, pursuant to the formula, are
provided an amount equal to or greater than the minimum
allocation amount, shall receive an allocation.
(2) Regulations.--The formula under this subsection shall
be established by regulation issued by the Secretary.
Notwithstanding sections 563(a) and 565(a) of title 5, United
States Code, any proposed regulation containing such formula
shall be issued pursuant to a negotiated rulemaking procedure
under subchapter of chapter 5 of such title and the Secretary
shall establish a negotiated rulemaking committee for
development of any such proposed regulations.
(b) Allocation Considerations.--
(1) Limitation on reallocation for another state.--Any
amounts allocated for a State or areas or communities within
a State that are not likely to be used within the fiscal year
for which the amounts are provided shall not be reallocated
for use in another State, unless the Secretary determines
that other areas or communities within the same State (that
are eligible for amounts under this title) cannot use the
amounts within the same fiscal year.
(2) Effect of receipt of tenant-based assistance for
disabled families.--The Secretary may not consider the
receipt by a local housing and management authority of
assistance under section 811(b)(1) of the Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act, or the amount received, in
approving amounts under this title for the authority or in
determining the amount of such assistance to be provided to
the authority.
(3) Exemption from formula allocation.--The formula
allocation requirements of subsection (a) shall not apply to
any assistance under this title that is approved in
appropriation Acts for uses that the Secretary determines are
incapable of geographic allocation, including amendments of
existing housing assistance payments contracts, renewal of
such contracts, assistance to families that would otherwise
lose assistance due to the decision of the project owner to
prepay the project mortgage or not to renew the housing
assistance payments contract, assistance to prevent
displacement or to provide replacement housing in connection
with the demolition or disposition of public and Indian
housing, assistance for relocation from public housing,
assistance in connection with protection of crime witnesses,
assistance for conversion from leased housing contracts under
section 23 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in
effect before the enactment of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974), and assistance in support of the
property disposition and loan management functions of the
Secretary.
(c) Set-Aside for Indian Housing Assistance.--The Secretary
shall allocate, in a manner determined by the Secretary, a
portion of the amounts made available in each fiscal year for
assistance under this title for assistance for Indian housing
authorities.
(d) Recapture of Amounts.--
(1) Authority.--In each fiscal year, from any budget
authority made available for assistance under this title or
section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in
effect before the enactment of this Act) that is obligated to
a local housing and management authority but remains
unobligated by the authority upon the expiration of the 8-
month period beginning upon the initial availability of such
amounts for obligation by the authority, the Secretary may
deobligate an amount, as determined by the Secretary, not
exceeding 50 percent of such unobligated amount.
(2) Use.--The Secretary may reallocate and transfer any
amounts deobligated under paragraph (1) only to local housing
and management authorities in areas that the Secretary
determines have received less funding than other areas, based
on the relative needs of all areas.
SEC. 305. ADMINISTRATIVE FEES.
(a) Fee for Ongoing Costs of Administration.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish fees for the
costs of administering the choice-based housing assistance
program under this title.
(2) Fiscal year 1996.--
(A) Calculation.--For fiscal year 1996, the fee for each
month for which a dwelling unit is covered by a contract for
assistance under this title shall be--
(i) in the case of a local housing and management authority
that, on an annual basis, is administering a program for not
more than 600 dwelling units, 6.5 percent of the base amount;
and
(ii) in the case of an authority that, on an annual basis,
is administering a program for more than 600 dwelling units--
(I) for the first 600 units, 6.5 percent of the base
amount; and
(II) for any additional dwelling units under the program,
6.0 percent of the base amount.
[[Page H4690]]
(B) Base amount.--For purposes of this paragraph, the base
amount shall be the higher of--
(i) the fair market rental established under section 8(c)
of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect
immediately before the date of the enactment of this Act) for
fiscal year 1993 for a 2-bedroom existing rental dwelling
unit in the market area of the authority, and
(ii) the amount that is the lesser of (I) such fair market
rental for fiscal year 1994 or (II) 103.5 percent of the
amount determined under clause (i),
adjusted based on changes in wage data or other objectively
measurable data that reflect the costs of administering the
program, as determined by the Secretary. The Secretary may
require that the base amount be not less than a minimum
amount and not more than a maximum amount.
(3) Subsequent fiscal years.--For subsequent fiscal years,
the Secretary shall publish a notice in the Federal Register,
for each geographic area, establishing the amount of the fee
that would apply for local housing and management authorities
administering the program, based on changes in wage data or
other objectively measurable data that reflect the costs of
administering the program, as determined by the Secretary.
(4) Increase.--The Secretary may increase the fee if
necessary to reflect the higher costs of administering small
programs and programs operating over large geographic areas.
(b) Fee for Preliminary Expenses.--The Secretary shall also
establish reasonable fees (as determined by the Secretary)
for--
(1) the costs of preliminary expenses, in the amount of
$500, for a local housing and management authority, but only
in the first year that the authority administers a choice-
based housing assistance program under this title, and only
if, immediately before the date of the enactment of this Act,
the authority was not administering a tenant-based rental
assistance program under the United States Housing Act of
1937 (as in effect immediately before such date of
enactment), in connection with its initial increment of
assistance received;
(2) the costs incurred in assisting families who experience
difficulty (as determined by the Secretary) in obtaining
appropriate housing under the programs; and
(3) extraordinary costs approved by the Secretary.
(c) Transfer of Fees in Cases of Concurrent Geographical
Jurisdiction.--
(1) In general.--In each fiscal year, if any local housing
and management authority provides tenant-based rental
assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act
of 1937 or housing assistance under this title on behalf of a
family who uses such assistance for a dwelling unit that is
located within the jurisdiction of such authority but is also
within the jurisdiction of another local housing and
management authority, the Secretary shall require the
authority issuing such assistance to transfer the amount
provided under paragraph (2) to the closest eligible
authority that is approved to administer the program and is
not designated as a troubled authority under section
431(a)(2)(D).
(2) Administrative fee.--The amount provided under this
paragraph is, with respect to each such family described in
subsection (a)--
(A) in the case of assistance under section 8 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937, the amount received under section
8(q) of such Act that is attributable to the administrative
fee under such section for such family for the portion of the
fiscal year during which such family resides in the dwelling
unit described in paragraph (1); and
(B) in the case of housing assistance under this title, an
amount of the grant amounts received under this title that is
equal to the administrative fee for a family established
under section 305 for such fiscal year, as adjusted based on
the portion of the fiscal year during which such family
resides in the dwelling unit described in paragraph (1).
SEC. 306. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated for
providing local housing and management authorities with
housing assistance under this title, $1,861,668,000 for each
of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.
(b) Assistance for Disabled Families.--
(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated, for choice-based housing assistance under
this title to be used in accordance with paragraph (2),
$50,000,000 for fiscal year 1997, and such sums as may be
necessary for each subsequent fiscal year.
(2) Use.--The Secretary shall provide amounts made
available under paragraph (1) to local housing and management
authorities only for use to provide housing assistance under
this title for nonelderly disabled families (including such
families relocating pursuant to designation of a public
housing development under section 227 and other nonelderly
disabled families who have applied to the authority for
housing assistance under this title).
(3) Allocation of amounts.--The Secretary shall allocate
and provide amounts made available under paragraph (1) to
local housing and management authorities as the Secretary
determines appropriate based on the relative levels of need
among the authorities for assistance for families described
in paragraph (1).
SEC. 307. CONVERSION OF SECTION 8 ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--Any amounts made available to a local
housing and management authority under a contract for annual
contributions for assistance under section 8 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before the enactment
of this Act) that have not been obligated for such assistance
by such authority before such enactment shall be used to
provide assistance under this title, except to the extent the
Secretary determines such use is inconsistent with existing
commitments.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any
amounts made available under a contract for housing
constructed or substantially rehabilitated pursuant to
section 8(b)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as
in effect before October 1, 1983.
Subtitle B--Choice-Based Housing Assistance for Eligible Families
SEC. 321. ELIGIBLE FAMILIES AND PREFERENCES FOR ASSISTANCE.
(a) Low-Income Requirement.--Housing assistance under this
title may be provided only on behalf of a family that--
(1) at the time that such assistance is initially provided
on behalf of the family, is determined by the local housing
and management authority to be a low-income family; or
(2) qualifies to receive such assistance under any other
provision of Federal law.
(b) Reviews of Family Incomes.--
(1) In general.--Reviews of family incomes for purposes of
this title shall be subject to the provisions of section 904
of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Amendments Act
of 1988 and shall be conducted upon the initial provision of
housing assistance for the family and thereafter not less
than annually.
(2) Procedures.--Each local housing and management
authority administering housing assistance under this title
shall establish procedures that are appropriate and necessary
to ensure that income data provided to the authority and
owners by families applying for or receiving housing
assistance from the authority is complete and accurate.
(c) Preferences for Assistance.--
(1) Authority to establish.--Any local housing and
management authority that receives amounts under this title
may establish a system for making housing assistance
available on behalf of eligible families that provides
preference for such assistance to eligible families having
certain characteristics.
(2) Content.--Each system of preferences established
pursuant to this subsection shall be based upon local housing
needs and priorities, as determined by the local housing and
management authority 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.
(d) Treatment of Assisted Families Who Move Out of
Jurisdiction of LHMA.--
(1) In general.--A local housing and management authority
may, in the discretion of the agency and notwithstanding any
preferences under subsection (c), provide housing assistance
for eligible families (or a certain number of such families)
who have moved into the jurisdiction of the authority and on
whose behalf such assistance was being provided, at the time
of such move, by the authority for the jurisdiction from
which the family moved.
(2) Assistance under 1937 act.--Notwithstanding any
provision of this title, a local housing and management
authority who, upon the date of the enactment of this Act, is
providing assistance under section 8 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 for a family pursuant to subsection (r)
of such section shall continue to provide such assistance (or
housing assistance under this title) in accordance with such
section until the local housing and management authority for
the jurisdiction to which the family moved provides housing
assistance on behalf of the family pursuant to paragraph (1)
of this subsection or otherwise or the authority terminates
such assistance for other reasons.
(e) Treatment of Families on Waiting List Who Move Out of
Jurisdiction of LHMA.--
(1) Move to jurisdiction with open waiting list.--Except as
provided in paragraph (2), if an eligible family (A) applies
for choice-based housing assistance while residing within the
jurisdiction of a local housing and management authority, (B)
moves outside of the jurisdiction of the authority before
such assistance is provided on behalf of the family, and (C)
applies for housing assistance from the local housing and
management authority for the jurisdiction to which the family
moves, such authority shall consider the application to have
been made upon the date that the family applied for
assistance with the authority in whose jurisdiction the
family previously resided.
(2) Move to jurisdiction with closed waiting list.--If the
local housing and management authority for the jurisdiction
to which an eligible family described in paragraph (1) moves
is not generally accepting applications for housing
assistance, such jurisdiction shall accept the application of
such family but shall treat the application as having been
made on the date on which it is actually made.
Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a local housing and
management authority may (at the discretion of the authority)
provide that any application by an eligible family whose move
to the jurisdiction not accepting applications for assistance
was made because of a verifiable employment opportunity shall
be subject to the provisions of paragraph (1).
(f) Authority to Deny Assistance to Certain Families Who
Move.--A local housing and management authority may establish
criteria for denying housing assistance, and pursuant to such
criteria may deny such assistance, to an eligible family who
has moved from the jurisdiction of another authority, who
received housing assistance from the authority for such other
jurisdiction, and whose assistance was terminated by such
other authority for reasons other than income ineligibility
or the change of residence.
(g) Loss of Assistance Upon Termination of Tenancy.--A
local housing and management
[[Page H4691]]
authority may, to the extent such policies are described in
the local housing management plan of the authority and
included in the lease for a dwelling unit, establish policies
providing that an assisted family whose tenancy is terminated
for serious violations of the terms or conditions of the
lease shall--
(1) lose any right to continued housing assistance; and
(2) immediately become ineligible for housing assistance
under this title for a period not exceeding 3 years from the
date of the termination of the housing assistance.
(h) 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 receiving
housing assistance who 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.
SEC. 322. RESIDENT CONTRIBUTION.
(a) 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. The
amount of the minimum monthly rental contribution--
(1) shall be based upon factors including the adjusted
income of the family and any other factors that the authority
considers appropriate;
(2) shall be not less than $25;
(3) shall include any portion of the cost of utilities for
the dwelling unit for which the resident is responsible; and
(4) 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.
In any case in which the monthly rent charged for a dwelling
unit pursuant to the housing assistance payments contract
exceeds the 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 this
subsection for such family) such entire excess rental amount.
(b) Rental Contribution for Elderly and Disabled
Families.--In establishing the amount of monthly rental
contributions under this section for disabled families and
elderly families residing in assisted dwelling units, a local
housing and management authority shall waive the
applicability of any provision of subsection (a) that may be
necessary to establish such contributions that are reasonable
based on the adjusted incomes of such families.
(c) Treatment of Changes in Rental Contribution.--
(1) Notification of changes.--A local housing and
management authority shall promptly notify the owner of an
assisted dwelling unit of any change in the resident
contribution by the assisted family residing in the unit that
takes effect immediately or at a later date.
(2) Collection of retroactive changes.--In the case of any
change in the rental contribution of an assisted family that
affects rental payments previously made, the local housing
and management authority shall collect any additional amounts
required to be paid by the family under such change directly
from the family and shall refund any excess rental
contribution paid by the family directly to the family.
(d) Phase-In of Rent Contribution Increases.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), for
any family that is receiving tenant-based rental assistance
under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 upon
the initial applicability of the provisions of this title to
such family, if the monthly contribution for rental of an
assisted dwelling unit to be paid by the family upon such
initial applicability 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 (a)(2) shall apply to each family described
in paragraph (1) of this subsection, notwithstanding such
paragraph.
SEC. 323. RENTAL INDICATORS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish and issue
rental indicators under this section periodically, but not
less than annually, for existing rental dwelling units that
are eligible dwelling units. The Secretary shall establish
and issue the rental indicators by housing market area (as
the Secretary shall establish) for various sizes and types of
dwelling units.
(b) Amount.--For a market area, the rental indicator
established under subsection (a) for a dwelling unit of a
particular size and type in the market area shall be a dollar
amount that reflects the rental amount for a standard quality
rental unit of such size and type in the market area that is
an eligible dwelling unit.
(c) Effective Date.--The Secretary shall cause the proposed
rental indicators established under subsection (a) for each
market area to be published in the Federal Register with
reasonable time for public comment, and such rental
indicators shall become effective upon the date of
publication in final form in the Federal Register.
(d) Annual Adjustment.--Each rental indicator in effect
under this section shall be adjusted to be effective on
October 1 of each year to reflect changes, based on the most
recent available data trended so that the indicators will be
current for the year to which they apply, in rents for
existing rental dwelling units of various sizes and types in
the market area suitable for occupancy by families assisted
under this title.
SEC. 324. LEASE TERMS.
Rental assistance may be provided for an eligible dwelling
unit only if the assisted family and the owner of the
dwelling unit enter into a lease for the unit that--
(1) provides for a single lease term of 12 months and
continued tenancy after such term under a periodic tenancy on
a month-to-month basis;
(2) contains terms and conditions specifying that
termination of tenancy during the term of a lease shall be
subject to the provisions set forth in section 325; and
(3) is set forth in the standard form, which is used in the
local housing market area by the owner and applies generally
to any other tenants in the property who are not assisted
families, together with any addendum necessary to include the
many terms required under this section.
A lease may include any addenda appropriate to set forth the
provisions under section 325.
SEC. 325. TERMINATION OF TENANCY.
(a) General Grounds for Termination of Tenancy.--Each
housing assistance payments contract under section 351 shall
provide that the owner of any assisted dwelling unit assisted
under the contract may, before expiration of a lease for a
unit, terminate the tenancy of any tenant of the unit, but
only for--
(1) violation of the terms and conditions of the lease,
violation of applicable Federal, State, or local law, or
other good cause; or
(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 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).
(b) Manner of Termination.--Each housing assistance
payments contract shall provide that the owner shall conduct
the termination of tenancy of any tenant of an assisted
dwelling unit under the contract in accordance with
applicable State or local laws, including providing any
notice of termination required under such laws.
SEC. 326. ELIGIBLE OWNERS.
(a) Ownership Entity.--Rental assistance under this title
may be provided for any eligible dwelling unit for which the
owner is any public agency, private person or entity
(including a cooperative), nonprofit organization, agency of
the Federal Government, or local housing and management
authority.
(b) Ineligible Owners.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), a local
housing and management authority may not enter into a housing
assistance payments contract (or renew an existing contract)
covering a dwelling unit that is 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.
(2) Prohibition of sale to related parties.--The Secretary
shall establish guidelines to prevent housing assistance
payments for a dwelling unit that is owned by any spouse,
child, or other party who allows an owner described in
paragraph (1) to maintain control of the unit.
(3) Rule of construction.--This subsection may not be
construed to 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.
SEC. 327. SELECTION OF DWELLING UNITS.
(a) Family Choice.--The determination of the dwelling unit
in which an assisted family resides and for which housing
assistance is provided under this title shall be made solely
by the assisted family, subject to the provisions of this
title.
(b) Deed Restrictions.--Housing assistance may not be used
in any manner that abrogates any local deed restriction that
applies to any housing consisting of 1 to 4 dwelling units.
Nothing in this section may be construed to affect the
provisions or applicability of the Fair Housing Act.
SEC. 328. ELIGIBLE DWELLING UNITS.
(a) In General.--A dwelling unit shall be an eligible
dwelling unit for purposes of this title only if the local
housing and management authority to provide housing
assistance for the dwelling unit determines that the dwelling
unit--
(1) is an existing dwelling unit that is not located within
a nursing home or the grounds of any penal, reformatory,
medical, mental, or similar public or private institution;
and
(2) complies--
(A) with applicable State or local laws, regulations,
standards, or codes regarding habitability of residential
dwellings that--
(i) are in effect for the jurisdiction in which the
dwelling unit is located;
(ii) provide protection to residents of the dwellings that
is equal to or greater than the
[[Page H4692]]
protection provided under the housing quality standards
established under subsection (b); and
(iii) that do not severely restrict housing choice; or
(B) in the case of a dwelling unit 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).
Each local housing and management authority providing housing
assistance shall identify, in the local housing management
plan for the authority, whether the authority is utilizing
the standard under subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (2)
and, if the authority utilizes the standard under
subparagraph (A), shall certify in such plan that the
applicable State or local laws, regulations, standards, or
codes comply with the requirements under such subparagraph.
(b) Determinations.--
(1) In general.--A local housing and management authority
shall make the determinations required under subsection (a)
pursuant to an inspection of the dwelling unit conducted
before any assistance payment is made for the unit.
(2) Failure to inspect.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), if
the inspection and the determinations referred to in
paragraph (1) are not made before the expiration of the 7-day
period beginning upon a request by the resident or landlord
to the local housing and management authority--
(A) the dwelling unit shall be considered to be an eligible
dwelling unit for purposes of this title; and
(B) the assisted family may occupy the dwelling unit, and
assistance payments for the unit may be made before necessary
repairs are completed, it the owner agrees to make such
repairs within 15 days.
(c) Federal Housing Quality Standards.--The Secretary shall
establish housing quality standards under this subsection
that ensure that assisted 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
232(b). The Secretary shall differentiate between major
and minor violations of such standards.
(d) Annual Inspections.--Each local housing and management
authority providing housing assistance shall make an annual
inspection of each assisted dwelling unit during the term of
the housing assistance payments contracts for the unit to
determine whether the unit is maintained in accordance with
the requirements under subsection (a)(2). 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.
(e) Inspection Guidelines.--The Secretary shall establish
procedural guidelines and performance standards to facilitate
inspections of dwelling units and conform such inspections
with practices utilized in the private housing market. Such
guidelines and standards shall take into consideration
variations in local laws and practices of local housing and
management authorities and shall provide flexibility to
authorities appropriate to facilitate efficient provision of
assistance under this title.
(f) Rule of Construction.--This section may not be
construed to prevent the provision of housing assistance in
connection with supportive services for elderly or disabled
families.
SEC. 329. HOMEOWNERSHIP OPTION.
(a) In General.--A local housing and management authority
providing housing assistance under this title may provide
homeownership assistance to assist eligible families to
purchase a dwelling unit (including purchase under lease-
purchase homeownership plans).
(b) Requirements.--A local housing and management authority
providing homeownership assistance under this section shall,
as a condition of an eligible family receiving such
assistance, require the family to--
(1) demonstrate that the family has income from employment
or other sources (other than public assistance), as
determined in accordance with requirements established by the
authority; and
(2) meet any other initial or continuing requirements
established by the local housing and management authority.
(c) Downpayment Requirement.--
(1) In general.--A local housing and management authority
may establish minimum downpayment requirements, if
appropriate, in connection with loans made for the purchase
of dwelling units for which homeownership assistance is
provided under this section. If the authority establishes a
minimum downpayment requirement, 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 subject to a downpayment
requirement, 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.
(d) Ineligibility Under Other Programs.--A family may not
receive homeownership assistance pursuant to this section
during any period when assistance is being provided for the
family under other Federal homeownership assistance programs,
as determined by the Secretary, including assistance under
the HOME Investment Partnerships Act, the Homeownership and
Opportunity Through HOPE Act, title II of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1987, and section 502 of the
Housing Act of 1949.
Subtitle C--Payment of Housing Assistance on Behalf of Assisted
Families
SEC. 351. HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS CONTRACTS.
(a) In General.--Each local housing and management
authority that receives amounts under a contract under
section 302 may enter into housing assistance payments
contracts with owners of existing dwelling units to make
housing assistance payments to such owners in accordance with
this title.
(b) LHMA Acting As Owner.--A local housing and management
authority may enter into a housing assistance payments
contract to make housing assistance payments under this title
to itself (or any agency or instrumentality thereof) as the
owner of dwelling units, and the authority shall be subject
to the same requirements that are applicable to other owners,
except that the determinations under section 328(a) and
354(b) shall be made by a competent party not affiliated with
the authority or the owner, and the authority shall be
responsible for any expenses of such determinations.
(c) Provisions.--Each housing assistance payments contract
shall--
(1) have a term of not more than 12 months;
(2) require that the assisted dwelling unit may be rented
only pursuant to a lease that complies with the requirements
of section 324;
(3) comply with the requirements of section 325 (relating
to termination of tenancy);
(4) require the owner to maintain the dwelling unit in
accordance with the applicable standards under section
328(a)(2); and
(5) provide that the screening and selection of eligible
families for assisted dwelling units shall be the function of
the owner.
SEC. 352. AMOUNT OF MONTHLY ASSISTANCE PAYMENT.
The amount of the monthly assistance payment for housing
assistance under this title on behalf of an assisted family
shall be as follows:
(1) Units having gross rent less than payment standard.--In
the case of a 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 amount by which the gross rent for the dwelling unit
exceeds the amount of the resident contribution determined in
accordance with section 322.
(2) 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,
the amount by which such payment standard exceeds the amount
of the resident contribution determined in accordance with
section 322.
SEC. 353. PAYMENT STANDARDS.
(a) Establishment.--Each local housing and management
authority providing housing assistance under this title shall
establish payment standards under this section for various
areas, and sizes and types of dwelling units, for use in
determining the amount of monthly housing assistance payment
to be provided on behalf of assisted families.
(b) Use of Rental Indicators.--The payment standard for
each size and type of housing for each market area shall be
an amount that is not less than 80 percent, and not greater
than 120 percent, of the rental indicator established under
section 323 for such size and type for such area.
(c) Review.--If the Secretary determines, at any time, that
a significant percentage of the assisted families who are
assisted by a large local housing and management authority
and are occupying dwelling units of a particular size are
paying more than 30 percent of their adjusted incomes for
rent, the Secretary shall review the payment standard
established by the authority for such size dwellings. If,
pursuant to the review, the Secretary determines that such
payment standard is not appropriate to serve the needs of the
low-income population of the jurisdiction served by the
authority (taking into consideration rental costs in the
area), as identified in the approved community improvement
plan of the authority, the Secretary may require the local
housing and management authority to modify the payment
standard. For purposes of this subsection, the term ``large
local housing and management authority'' means a local
housing and management authority that provides housing
assistance on behalf of 1250 or more assisted families.
SEC. 354. REASONABLE RENTS.
(a) Establishment.--The rent charged for a dwelling unit
for which rental assistance is provided under this title
shall be established pursuant to negotiation and agreement
between the assisted family and the owner of the dwelling
unit.
(b) Reasonableness.--
(1) Determination.--A local housing and management
authority providing rental assistance under this title for a
dwelling unit shall, before commencing assistance payments
for a unit, determine whether the rent charged for the unit
exceeds the rents charged for comparable units in the
applicable private unassisted market.
(2) Unreasonable rents.--If the authority determines that
the rent charged for a dwelling unit exceeds such comparable
rents, the authority shall--
(A) inform the assisted family renting the unit that such
rent exceeds the rents for comparable unassisted units in the
market; and
[[Page H4693]]
(B) refuse to provide housing assistance payments for such
unit.
SEC. 355. PROHIBITION OF ASSISTANCE FOR VACANT RENTAL UNITS.
If an assisted family vacates a dwelling unit for which
rental assistance is provided under a housing assistance
payments contract before the expiration of the term of the
lease for the unit, rental assistance pursuant to such
contract may not be provided for the unit after the month
during which the unit was vacated.
Subtitle D--General and Miscellaneous Provisions
SEC. 371. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this title:
(1) Assisted dwelling unit.--The term ``assisted dwelling
unit'' means a dwelling unit in which an assisted family
resides and for which housing assistance payments are made
under this title.
(2) Assisted family.--The term ``assisted family'' means an
eligible family on whose behalf housing assistance payments
are made under this title or who has been selected and
approved for housing assistance.
(3) Choice-based.--The term ``choice-based'' means, with
respect to housing assistance, that the assistance is not
attached to a dwelling unit but can be used for any eligible
dwelling unit selected by the eligible family.
(4) Eligible dwelling unit.--The term ``eligible dwelling
unit'' means a dwelling unit that complies with the
requirements under section 328 for consideration as an
eligible dwelling unit.
(5) Eligible family.--The term ``eligible family'' means a
family that meets the requirements under section 321(a) for
assistance under this title.
(6) Homeownership assistance.--The term ``homeownership
assistance'' means housing assistance provided under section
329 for the ownership of a dwelling unit.
(7) Housing assistance.--The term ``housing assistance''
means assistance provided under this title on behalf of low-
income families for the rental or ownership of an eligible
dwelling unit.
(8) Housing assistance payments contract.--The term
``housing assistance payments contract'' means a contract
under section 351 between a local housing and management
authority (or the Secretary) and an owner to make housing
assistance payments under this title to the owner on behalf
of an assisted family.
(9) Local housing and management authority.--The terms
``local housing and management authority'' and ``authority''
have the meaning given such terms in section 103, except that
the terms include--
(A) a consortia of local housing and management authorities
that the Secretary determines has the capacity and capability
to administer a program for housing assistance under this
title in an efficient manner;
(B) any other entity that, upon the date of the enactment
of this Act, was administering any program for tenant-based
rental assistance under section 8 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before the enactment of
this Act), pursuant to a contract with the Secretary or a
public housing agency; and
(C) with respect to any area in which no local housing and
management authority has been organized or where the
Secretary determines that a local housing and management
authority is unwilling or unable to implement this title, or
is not performing effectively--
(i) the Secretary or another entity that by contract agrees
to receive assistance amounts under this title and enter into
housing assistance payments contracts with owners and perform
the other functions of local housing and management authority
under this title; or
(ii) notwithstanding any provision of State or local law, a
local housing and management authority for another area that
contracts with the Secretary to administer a program for
housing assistance under this title, without regard to any
otherwise applicable limitations on its area of operation.
(10) Owner.--The term ``owner'' means the person or entity
having the legal right to lease or sublease dwelling units.
Such term includes any principals, general partners, primary
shareholders, and other similar participants in any entity
owning a multifamily housing project, as well as the entity
itself.
(11) Rent.--The terms ``rent'' and ``rental'' include, with
respect to members of a cooperative, the charges under the
occupancy agreements between such members and the
cooperative.
(12) Rental assistance.--The term ``rental assistance''
means housing assistance provided under this title for the
rental of a dwelling unit.
SEC. 372. RENTAL ASSISTANCE FRAUD RECOVERIES.
(a) Authority To Retain Recovered Amounts.--The Secretary
shall permit local housing and management authorities
administering housing assistance under this title to retain,
out of amounts obtained by the authorities from tenants that
are due as a result of fraud and abuse, an amount (determined
in accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary) equal
to the greater of--
(1) 50 percent of the amount actually collected; or
(2) the actual, reasonable, and necessary expenses related
to the collection, including costs of investigation, legal
fees, and collection agency fees.
(b) Use.--Amounts retained by an authority shall be made
available for use in support of the affected program or
project, in accordance with regulations issued by the
Secretary. If the Secretary is the principal party initiating
or sustaining an action to recover amounts from families or
owners, the provisions of this section shall not apply.
(c) Recovery.--Amounts may be recovered under this
section--
(1) by an authority through a lawsuit (including settlement
of the lawsuit) brought by the authority or through court-
ordered restitution pursuant to a criminal proceeding
resulting from an authority's investigation where the
authority seeks prosecution of a family or where an authority
seeks prosecution of an owner;
(2) through administrative repayment agreements with a
family or owner entered into as a result of an administrative
grievance procedure conducted by an impartial decisionmaker
in accordance with section 110; or
(3) through an agreement between the parties.
SEC. 373. STUDY REGARDING GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATION OF
ASSISTED FAMILIES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of the
geographic areas in the State of Illinois served by the
Housing Authority of Cook County and the Chicago Housing
Authority and submit to the Congress a report and a specific
proposal, which addresses and resolves the issues of--
(1) the adverse impact on local communities due to
geographic concentration of assisted households under the
tenant-based housing programs under section 8 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect immediately before
the enactment of this Act) and under this title; and
(2) facilitating the deconcentration of such assisted
households by providing broader housing choices to such
households.
The study shall be completed, and the report shall be
submitted, not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(b) Concentration.--For purposes of this section, the term
``concentration'' means, with respect to any area within a
census tract, that--
(1) 15 percent or more of the households residing within
such area have incomes which do not exceed the poverty level;
or
(2) 15 percent or more of the total affordable housing
stock located within such area is assisted housing.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title III?
Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Sanders
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 47 offered by Mr. Sanders: Page 145, line 23,
strike ``6.5 percent'' and insert ``7.65 percent''.
Page 146, lines 4 and 5, strike ``6.5 percent'' and insert
``7.65 percent''.
Page 146, line 7, strike ``6.0 percent'' and insert ``7.0
percent''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of May 8, 1996,
the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] will be recognized for 5
minutes in support of his amendment, and the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Lazio] will be recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the
amendment.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the Republican leadership
here, because my understanding is that they will be accepting this
amendment. In truth, this is a tripartisan amendment. It has support
from the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] and other
Republicans, as well as many Democrats.
Mr. Chairman, many Members of Congress have criticized public housing
and believe that Americans should be able to decide for themselves how
best to spend their housing allowance. These critics should be
supporters of the Section 8 program, but this laudable program is not
reaching everyone that is eligible for assistance.
About 1.5 million people receive section 8 assistance, but close to
that same amount are on the waiting list. In my home State of Vermont,
the waiting list is over 3 years long. In some areas, applicants wait
for more than 10 years.
Unfortunately, this bill contains a provision that would make these
waiting periods even longer. I am talking about the major cuts in fees
for administering the Section 8 program. If the bill had been in place
for fiscal year 1996, housing authorities would have received, on
average, 23 percent less to administer the tenant-based Section 8
program. Nationally, according to HUD, we are talking about a $182
million cut in section 8 administration.
In California alone, that cut amounts to almost $30 million; in New
York, over $21 million; and in New Jersey, over $7 million. In my small
State of Vermont, we would lose $318,000.
Mr. Chairman, the simple fact of the matter is that this cut goes far
too deep. If we believe in section 8 housing, then we must allocate
enough money for the program to be administered effectively. Otherwise,
we are killing this program through a backdoor method and I do not
think that that is
[[Page H4694]]
what the majority of Members want to do.
There is widespread support for section 8, and I do not believe that
anyone really wants to hurt it. This bill provides for a two-tier
formula where public housing authorities get a fee based on 6.5 percent
of fair market value for the first 600 units and 6 percent of fair
market value for the rest.
Mr. Chairman, this is a huge cut from the fiscal year 1995 and fiscal
year 1996, when fees were based on 8.2 percent of fair market value.
HUD estimates that over 90 percent of the agencies that administer
Section 8 housing will lose more than 15 percent of their
administrative funds. On average, it will be an estimated 23-percent
cut per agency.
Mr. Chairman, I am offering a compromise amendment that puts the fee
level about halfway in between where the funds are today and where they
would be under the provisions of the bill. The two-tiered formula would
remain, but the 6 percent number would be raised to 7 percent and the
6.5 percent number would be raised to 7.65. It is a compromise between
the 8.2 percent formula used today and the 6 and 6.5 percent levels
recommended in the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I should point out that that is the formula recommended
by HUD and HUD supports this amendment. The National Association of
Housing and Redevelopment Officials are also strong supporters of this
amendment.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, many of us had believed that this amendment
was going to be accepted as part of the manager's amendment and we were
surprised that it was not. If it is adopted, fees would still be cut an
estimated 10.5 percent. That is a big cut. That is a major cut. But it
would not devastate the administration of the program as the proposed
cuts do. This is a compromise position, and my hope is that it would be
supported by all Members.
Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by stating that every State in the
country is severely affected by the provisions stated in this bill. It
provides for an estimated 23 percent cut in Section 8 administrative
fees. That is much too high.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to please support the compromise
position and vote ``yes.''
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Chairman Lazio for his
hard work on this thoughtful and forward thinking proposal to reform
our public housing system, and ask the chairman to consider accepting
the amendment offered by Congressman Sanders.
H.R. 2406 significantly reforms the public housing programs and
requires our public housing authorities to take on significant new
responsibilities. At a time when we are making such monumental changes
in the public housing assistance program, we should be careful not to
reduce the fees to a level that could seriously undermined the ability
of the authorities to do their job in an efficient and effective
manner.
As the bill currently stands, my State would be forced to absorb a
23-percent reduction in administrative fees, and your own State New
York will take a 24-percent reduction. Everyone that administers
section 8 would be hurt--over 90 percent of the 2,300 agencies
administering section 8 programs would lose more than 15 percent of
their fees.
While I strongly support spending reductions and want to reach the
goal of a balanced budget, I am concerned about the impact of such a
large reduction on the agencies that administer section 8 tenant-based
rental housing assistance programs.
The Sanders amendment would still require a reduction in spending.
However, while the current proposal included in H.R. 2406 would require
an overall reduction of 23.6 percent in fiscal year 1996; the Sanders
amendment would require only a 10.5-percent reduction in administrative
fees. This puts the fee level about halfway between where the funds are
today and where they would be under the provisions of the bill. The
two-tiered formula would remain, but instead of 6.5 percent for the
first 600 units, and 6 percent for additional units, the fee would be
7.65 percent and 7 percent respectfully.
This amendment deserves the support of the chairman, and I urge your
support.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of this amendment, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title III?
amendment no. 16 offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts:
Page 150, strike line 3 and all that follows through line 25,
insert the following:
(b) Additional Assistance.--
(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated, for choice-based housing assistance under
this title--
(A) to be used in accordance with paragraph (2)(A),
$50,000,000 for fiscal year 1997, and such sums as may be
necessary for each subsequent fiscal year; and
(B) to be used in accordance with paragraph (2)(B),
$195,000,000 for fiscal year 1997, and such sums as may be
necessary for each subsequent fiscal year.
(2) Use.--
(A) Nonelderly disabled families.--The Secretary shall
provide amounts made available under paragraph (1)(A) to
local housing and management authorities only for use to
provide housing assistance under this title for nonelderly
disabled families (including such families relocating
pursuant to designation of a public housing development under
section 227 and other nonelderly disabled families who have
applied to the authority for housing assistance under this
title).
(B) Welfare and homeless families.--The Secretary shall
provide amounts made available under paragraph (1)(B) to
local housing and management authorities only for use to
provide housing assistance under this title for, as
determined by the Secretary, the following families:
(i) Families participating in programs that link housing
assistance to State and local welfare reform strategies for
the purposes of assisting families making the transition from
welfare to work and empowering families to choose housing in
locations that offer the best access to jobs, education,
training, and other services needed to achieve long-term
self-sufficiency.
(ii) Homeless families with children.
(iii) Other eligible families.
(3) Allocation of amounts.--The Secretary shall allocate
and provide amounts made available under paragraph (1) to
local housing and management authorities as the Secretary
determines appropriate based on the relative levels of need
among the authorities for assistance for families described
in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (2) and such other
relevant factors as the Secretary deems appropriate.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of Wednesday,
May 8, 1996, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and a
Member opposed will each control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with what I think is a critical
shortage, and I am sure the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], my
friend and chairman of the committee, will agree that there is an
unprecedented aspect of this bill which we have not discussed as yet,
and that is that this is the first time in some 15 years that we have
zeroed out or limited the number of new vouchers that will be provided
for by our Government to the people in greatest need.
Mr. Chairman, we have had so much debate over the course of the last
several years about how we are going to help people transition from
welfare to work. The truth of the matter is if we are really interested
in getting people out of welfare and into work, we have to recognize
that we are going to need to deal with some short-term housing needs.
This amendment would provide for those short-term housing needs by
virtue of a $195 million allocation for welfare and homeless families
where they are involved solely in programs linking work and welfare,
and/or other homeless families with children that would qualify.
This tries to deal with the fact that if we simply level off the
number of Section 8 vouchers that we are providing, and do not take
into account the fact that there are now many more people that are
going to need those vouchers, particularly if they are in a transition
from welfare to work, that we give rhetoric to the whole idea of the
transition but we do not put the dollars that are necessary to fulfill
the hopes and dreams of people that actually want to get off of the
welfare system and get back into full-fledged
[[Page H4695]]
American society in the sense of being able to participate and being
able to go out and make some money and have a self-sustaining home and
family life.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we could have an agreement. I
fully recognize that trying to get an additional authorization of
appropriations of $50 million for locating the elderly and the
nonelderly and tenants dislocated because of project changes that we
have talked about that might occur as a result of the over 30,000 units
that are going to be destroyed because of the flexibilities that we are
building into this bill, it would be very difficult to actually obtain
given the make up of the House of Representatives and the fact that we
have seen the housing budget of the country cut by 25 percent.
So, trying to actually get more money in this bill is probably a very
difficult thing. If we offered an amendment and called for a vote, the
truth of the matter is we would probably lose it. But I would like to
enter into a dialog with my good friend and chairman, the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Lazio], with the hopes that he would commit himself
in the conference that will be generated between this body and the
other body to make certain that we try to leverage as many new Section
8 vouchers as we possibly can.
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, as the gentleman has suggested,
we have actually in our bill allowed for the issuance or the
authorization for the issuance of new vouchers over and above those
that currently exist and those that get turned in. We authorize the
issuance of further vouchers.
Mr. Chairman, as we go through the conference process, I would assure
the gentleman that I will continue to support strongly the authority
for new incremental vouchers, and I will also support that through the
budget process wherever possible.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I
appreciate the gentleman's offer. I point out that we are holding out
the promise of being able to transition from welfare to work. If all we
do is give the promise without the necessary dollars to actually allow
people to get out of public housing and get back on track, then it is a
false hope and we end up destroying lives rather than helping to
improve them.
So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the gentleman from
New York.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
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 III?
amendment no. 32 offered by mr. traficant
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that it now be
in order to consider amendment No. 32, without prejudice to other
amendments in title III.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio:
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 32 offered by Mr. Traficant: At the end of
title V of the bill, insert the following new section:
SEC. 504. USE OF AMERICAN PRODUCTS.
(a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--It
is the sense of the Congress that, to the greatest extent
practicable, all equipment and products purchased with funds
made available in this Act should be American made.
(b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance
to, or entering into any contract with any entity using funds
made available in this Act, the head of each Federal agency,
to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to such
entity a notice describing the statement made in subsection
(a) by the Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement of May 8,
1996, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] will be recognized for 5
minutes, and a Member in opposition will be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
{time} 1445
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This is a straightforward amendment, buy American amendment. If we
are going to get people off welfare and into work, there is only one
way to do it. That is to create a few jobs. If the products are made in
America by American workers who get a paycheck, who pay taxes, that is
a pretty good way and a pretty good start to doing it. This is not a
fancy amendment, but in our housing programs they buy sinks, they buy
toilets. They buy plumbing materials. They buy electrical supplies.
There is an awful lot of procurement.
And for the Members of the House to understand something, it came to
my attention just this week, that certain legislative offices here at
the Capitol got brand new televisions that were made in Malaysia. The
question I have is, how many people in Malaysia pay taxes to Uncle Sam?
I am for all of this internationalism. I am hoping that we will pass
H.R. 447, the 1-800 buy America program that whenever any citizen is
going to make a purchase over $250, they could call that buy American
number and say, what product is made in America. Hopefully there will
be some products made in America. There will be some jobs. I appreciate
the fact no one objected to this being taken out of order. I would ask
that it be included in the bill and saved in the conference.
I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], a good friend
doing a good job on this tough bill.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, beam me up, Scottie. We would
not have an American housing bill without a buy American amendment by
my friend, the gentleman from Ohio. I want to say that I am happy to
support the gentleman's amendment, urge its adoption, thank the
gentleman for coming to the floor, continuing to remind us of the buy
American pattern.
I hope Americans that are watching this continue to stay focused on
buying American goods wherever possible and that we encourage that in
our public and assisted housing as well.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member seeking time in opposition to the
amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title III?
amendment no. 6 offered by mr. filner
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Filner:
Page 170, after line 3, insert the following new section:
SEC. 330. ASSISTANCE FOR RENTAL OF MANUFACTURED HOMES.
(a) Authority.--Nothing in this title may be construed to
prevent a local housing and management authority from
providing housing assistance under this title on behalf of a
low-income family for the rental of--
(1) a manufactured home that is the principal residence of
the family and the real property on which the home is
located; or
(2) the real property on which is located a manufactured
home, which is owned by the family and is the principal
residence of the family.
(b) Assistance for Certain Families Owning Manufactured
Homes.--
(1) Authority.--Notwithstanding section 351 or any other
provision of this title, a local housing and management
authority that receives amounts under a contract under
section 302 may enter into a housing assistance payment
contract to make assistance payments under this title to a
family that owns a manufactured home, but only as provided in
paragraph (2).
(2) Limitations.--In the case of a low-income family that
owns a manufactured home, rents the real property on which it
is located, and to whom housing assistance under this title
has been made available for the rental of such property, the
local housing and management authority making such assistance
available shall enter into a contract to make housing
assistance payments under this title directly to the family
(rather than to the owner of such real property) if--
(1) the owner of the real property refuses to enter into a
contract to receive housing assistance payments pursuant to
section 351(a);
(2) the family was residing in such manufactured home on
such real property at the time such housing assistance was
initially made available on behalf of the family;
(3) the family provides such assurances to the agency, as
the Secretary may require, to
[[Page H4696]]
ensure that amounts from the housing assistance payments are
used for rental of the real property; and
(4) the rental of the real property other-wise complies
with the requirements for assistance under this title.
A contract pursuant to this subsection shall be subject to
the provisions of section 351 and any other provisions
applicable to housing assistance payments contracts under
this title, except that the Secretary may provide such
exceptions as the Secretary considers appropriate to
facilitate the provision of assistance under this subsection.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of Wednesday,
May 8, 1996, the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner] and a Member
opposed will each control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner].
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment could be called the mobile homeowners protection
amendment, because it calls for fairness and equity for thousands of
our citizens who live in mobile homes. Currently, as you know, housing
assistance payments are made to landlords of rental property, not to
the tenants. And in most cases, this makes sense. For example, an
apartment renter having received a housing assistance payment could
move without using the money for rent. But we have a very unique
situation with residents of mobile homes. Most own their own home and
rent the land on which it sits.
Contrary to the name, mobile home, they are really not free to move
quickly. It is both laborious and expensive to do so. For example, in
San Diego County, where many of my constituents live in mobile homes,
it costs a minimum of $10,000 to move a mobile home.
In fact, in San Diego County, they can barely move at all because
there are very few empty spaces and they are held captive to the whims
of the park owners from whom they rent a space to park their homes.
Mr. Chairman, when park owners decide they will not accept housing
assistance payments, the mobile home residents are stuck because the
law says their participation is voluntary and there is nothing that the
department of HUD can do to force owners to accept payments for
residents.
In fact, recently HUD told a couple of my constituents who had
section 8 eligibility whose park owner would not accept it, just move.
Well, as I have said before, they cannot move.
So my amendment will fix that. It is a simple change in the law which
will allow housing assistance payments to go to the tenants of mobile
home parks, the people who must rent their land upon which to put their
mobile home. This amendment will not increase costs. It will not force
mobile home park residents to accept new residents because mobile home
residents who qualify for rental assistance do so because they have
either grown older or become disabled. They are already residents of
these mobile home parks by my amendment.
This amendment will provide fairness to our citizens who need housing
assistance and who live in mobile home parks.
Mr. Chairman, that explains the amendment. If there are any questions
or comments from the honorable chairman, I would be happy to answer
them.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman refers to
what is referred to as a mobile home, but this amendment is far broader
than just mobile home. In fact, manufactured homes these days, a
combination of prefabricated homes in a number of different styles, are
increasingly attractive, and I know the gentleman from Indiana, my
friend, Mr. Roemer, would be quick to suggest to me that manufactured
homes are not just mobile homes as well as other Members. I think this
is a good amendment. I appreciate the gentleman's cooperation, working
with both me personally and our staff. I am happy to accept and support
this amendment.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I appreciate the
correct terminology here and certainly that is what my amendment uses.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition to the
amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California [Mr. Filner].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?
If not, the Clerk will designate title IV.
The text of title IV is as follows:
TITLE IV--ACCREDITATION AND OVERSIGHT OF LOCAL HOUSING AND MANAGEMENT
AUTHORITIES
Subtitle A--Housing Foundation and Accreditation Board
SEC. 401. ESTABLISHMENT.
There is established an independent agency in the executive
branch of the Government to be known as the Housing
Foundation and Accreditation Board (in this title referred to
as the ``Board'').
SEC. 402. MEMBERSHIP.
(a) In General.--The Board shall be composed of 12 members
appointed by the President not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, as follows:
(1) 4 members shall be appointed from among 10 individuals
recommended by the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development.
(2) 4 members shall be appointed from among 10 individuals
recommended by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of
the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the
Senate.
(3) 4 members appointed from among 10 individuals
recommended by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of
the Committee on Banking and Financial Services of the House
of Representatives.
(b) Qualifications.--
(1) Required representation.--The Board shall at all times
have the following members:
(A) 2 members who are residents of public housing or
dwelling units assisted under title III of this Act or the
provisions of section 8 of the United States Housing Act of
1937 (as in effect before the enactment of this Act).
(B) 2 members who are executive directors of local housing
and management authorities.
(C) 1 member who is a member of the Institute of Real
Estate Managers.
(D) 1 member who is the owner of a multifamily housing
project assisted under a program administered by the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
(2) Required experience.--The Board shall at all times have
as members individuals with the following experience:
(A) At least 1 individual who has extensive experience in
the residential real estate finance business.
(B) At least 1 individual who has extensive experience in
operating a nonprofit organization that provides affordable
housing.
(C) At least 1 individual who has extensive experience in
construction of multifamily housing.
(D) At least 1 individual who has extensive experience in
the management of a community development corporation.
A single member of the board with the appropriate experience
may satisfy the requirements of more than 1 subparagraph of
this paragraph. A single member of the board with the
appropriate qualifications and experience may satisfy the
requirements of a subparagraph of paragraph (1) and a
subparagraph of this paragraph.
(c) Political Affiliation.--Not more than 6 members of the
Board may be of the same political party.
(d) Terms.--
(1) In general.--Each member of the Board shall be
appointed for a term of 4 years, except as provided in
paragraphs (2) and (3).
(2) Terms of initial appointees.--As designated by the
President at the time of appointment, of the members first
appointed--
(A) 3 shall be appointed for terms of 1 year;
(B) 3 shall be appointed for terms of 2 years;
(C) 3 shall be appointed for terms of 3 years; and
(D) 3 shall be appointed for terms of 4 years;
(3) Vacancies.--Any member appointed to fill a vacancy
occurring before the expiration of the term for which the
member's predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only
for the remainder of that term. A member may serve after the
expiration of that member's term until a successor has taken
office. A vacancy in the Board shall be filled in the manner
in which the original appointment was made.
(e) Chairperson.--The Board shall elect a chairperson from
among members of the Board.
(f) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Board shall
constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
(g) Voting.--Each member of the Board shall be entitled to
1 vote, which shall be equal to the vote of every other
member of the Board.
(h) Prohibition on Additional Pay.--Members of the Board
shall serve without compensation, but shall be reimbursed for
travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred in
the performance of their duties as members of the Board.
SEC. 403. FUNCTIONS.
The purpose of this subtitle is to establish the Board as a
nonpolitical entity to carry out the following functions:
(1) Evaluation of deep subsidy programs.--Measuring the
performance and efficiency of all ``deep subsidy'' programs
for housing assistance administered by the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development, including the public housing
program under title II and the programs for tenant- and
project-based rental assistance under title III and section 8
of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before
the enactment of this Act).
(2) Establishment of lhma performance benchmarks.--
Establishing standards and
[[Page H4697]]
guidelines under section 431 for use by the Secretary in
measuring the performance and efficiency of local housing and
management authorities and other owners and providers of
federally assisted housing in carrying out operational and
financial functions.
(3) Accreditation of lhma's.--Establishing a procedure
under section 431(b) for accrediting local housing and
management authorities to receive block grants under title I
for the operation, maintenance, and production of public
housing, ensuring that financial and performance audits under
such section are conducted annually for each local housing
and management authority, and reviewing such audits for
purposes of accreditation.
(4) Classification of lhma's.--Classifying local housing
and management authorities, under to section 434, according
to the performance categories under section 431(a)(2).
SEC. 404. INITIAL ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES
FOR LHMA COMPLIANCE.
(a) Deadline.--Not later than the expiration of the 12-
month period beginning upon the completion of the
appointment, under section 402, of the initial members of the
Board, the Board shall organize its structure and operations,
establish the standards, guidelines, and procedures under
sections 431, and establish any fees under section 406.
Before issuing such standards, guidelines, and procedures in
final form, the Board shall submit a copy to the Congress.
(b) Priority of Initial Evaluations.--After organization of
the Board and establishment of standards, guidelines, and
procedures under sections 431, the Board shall commence
evaluations under section 433(b) for the purpose of
accrediting local housing and management authorities and
shall give priority to conducting evaluations of local
housing and management authorities that are designated as
troubled public housing agencies under section 6(j) of the
United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before the
date of the enactment of this Act) pursuant to section
431(d).
SEC. 405. POWERS.
(a) Hearings.--The Board may, for the purpose of carrying
out this subtitle, hold such hearings and sit and act at such
times and places as the Board determines appropriate.
(b) Rules and Regulations.--The Board 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 Board may secure directly from any
department or agency of the Federal Government such
information as the Board may require for carrying out its
functions, including local housing management plans
submitted to the Secretary by local housing and management
authorities under title II. Upon request of the Board, any
such department or agency shall furnish such information.
The Board may acquire information directly from local
housing and management authorities to the same extent the
Secretary may acquire such information.
(2) General services administration.--The Administrator of
General Services shall provide to the Board, on a
reimbursable basis, such administrative support services as
the Board may request.
(3) Department of housing and urban development.--Upon the
request of the chairperson of the Board, the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development shall, to the extent possible
and subject to the discretion of the Secretary, detail any of
the personnel of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, on a nonreimbursable basis, to assist the Board
in carrying out its functions under this subtitle.
(d) Mails.--The Board may use the United States mails in
the same manner and under the same conditions as other
Federal agencies.
(e) Contracting.--The Board may, to such extent and in such
amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, enter into
contracts with private firms, institutions, and individuals
for the purpose of conducting research or surveys necessary
to enable the Board to discharge its functions under this
subtitle.
(f) Staff.--
(1) Executive director.--The Board shall appoint an
executive director of the Board, who shall be compensated at
a rate fixed by the Board, but which shall not exceed the
rate established for level V of the Executive Schedule under
title 5, United States Code.
(2) Other personnel.--In addition to the executive
director, the Board may appoint and fix the compensation of
such personnel as the Board considers necessary, 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. Such personnel may include personnel for
assessment teams under section 431(b).
SEC. 406. FEES.
(a) Accreditation Fees.--The Board may establish and charge
fees for the accreditation of local housing and management
authorities as the Board considers necessary to cover the
costs of the operations of the Board relating to establishing
standards, guidelines, and procedures for evaluating the
performance of local housing and management authorities and
performing comprehensive reviews relating to the
accreditation of such authorities.
(b) Fund.--Any fees collected under this section shall be
deposited in an operations fund for the Board, which is
hereby established in the Treasury of the United States.
Amounts in such fund shall be available, to the extent
provided in appropriation Acts, for the expenses of the Board
in carrying out its functions under this subtitle.
SEC. 407. REPORTS.
The Board shall submit a report to the Congress annually
describing, for the year for which the report is made--
(1) any modifications made by the Board to the standards,
guidelines, and procedures issued under section 431 by the
Board;
(2) the results of the assessments, reviews, and
evaluations conducted by the Board under subtitle B;
(3) the types and extent of assistance, information, and
products provided by the Board; and
(4) any other activities of the Board.
Subtitle B--Accreditation and Oversight Standards and Procedures
SEC. 431. ESTABLISHMENT OF PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS AND
ACCREDITATION PROCEDURES.
(a) Performance Benchmarks.--
(1) Performance areas.--The Housing Foundation and
Accreditation Board established under section 401 (in this
subtitle referred to as the ``Board'') shall establish
standards and guidelines, for use under section 434, to
measure the performance of local housing and management
authorities in all aspects relating to--
(A) operational and financial functions;
(B) providing, maintaining, and assisting low-income
housing--
(i) that is safe, clean, and healthy, as required under
sections 232 and 328;
(ii) in a manner consistent with the comprehensive housing
affordability strategy under section 105 of the Cranston-
Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, if appropriate;
(iii) that is occupied by eligible families; and
(iv) that is affordable to eligible families;
(C) producing low-income housing and executing capital
projects, if applicable;
(D) administering the provision of housing assistance under
title III;
(E) accomplishing the goals and plans set forth in the
local housing management plan for the authority;
(F) promoting responsibility and self-sufficiency among
residents of public housing developments of the authority and
assisted families under title III; and
(G) complying with the other requirements of the authority
under block grant contracts under title II, grant agreements
under title III, and the provisions of this Act.
(2) Performance categories.--In establishing standards and
guidelines under this section, the Board shall define various
levels of performance, which shall include the following
levels:
(A) Exceptionally well-managed.--A minimum acceptable level
of performance in the areas specified in paragraph (1) for
classification of a local housing and management authority as
exceptionally well-managed, which shall indicate that the
authority functions exceptionally.
(B) Well-managed.--A minimum acceptable level of
performance in the areas specified in paragraph (1) for
classification of a local housing and management authority as
well-managed, which shall indicate that the authority
functions satisfactorily.
(C) At risk of becoming troubled.--A minimum acceptable
level of performance in the areas specified in paragraph (1)
for classification of a local housing and management
authority as at risk of becoming troubled, which shall
indicate that there are elements in the operations,
management, or functioning of the authority that must be
addressed before they result in serious and complicated
deficiencies.
(D) Troubled.--A minimum level of performance in the areas
specified in paragraph (1) for classification of a local
housing and management authority as a troubled authority,
which shall indicate that the authority functions
unsatisfactorily with respect to certain areas under
paragraph (1), but such deficiencies are not irreparable.
(E) Dysfunctional.--A maximum level of performance in the
areas specified in paragraph (1) for classification of a
local housing and management authority as dysfunctional,
which shall indicate that the authority suffers such
deficiencies that the authority should not be allowed to
continue to manage low-income housing or administer housing
assistance.
(3) Accreditation standard.--In establishing standards and
guidelines under this section, the Board shall establish a
minimum acceptable level of performance for accrediting a
local housing and management authority for purposes of
authorizing the authority to enter into a new block grant
contract under title II or a new grant agreement under title
III.
(b) Accreditation Procedure.--The Accreditation Board shall
establish procedures for--
(1) reviewing the performance of a local housing and
management authority over the term of the expiring
accreditation, which review shall be conducted during the 12-
month period that ends upon the conclusion of the term of the
expiring accreditation;
(2) evaluating the capability of a local housing and
management authority that proposes to enter into an initial
block grant contract under title II or an initial grant
agreement under title III; and
(3) determining whether the authority complies with the
standards and guidelines for accreditation established under
subsection (a)(3).
The procedures for a review or evaluation under this
subsection shall provide for the review or evaluation to be
conducted by an assessment team established by the Board,
which shall review annual financial and performance audits
conducted under section 432 and obtain such information as
the Board may require.
(c) Identification of Potential Problems.--The standards
and guidelines under subsection (a) and the procedure under
subsection (b) shall be established in a manner designed to
identify potential problems in the operations, management,
functioning of local
[[Page H4698]]
housing and management authorities at a time before such
problems result in serious and complicated deficiencies.
(d) Interim Applicability of PHMAP.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this subtitle, during the period that
begins on the date of the enactment of this Act and ends upon
the date of the effectiveness of final regulations
establishing the standards, guidelines, and procedures
required under this section and section 432, the Secretary
shall assess the management performance of local housing and
management authorities in the same manner provided for public
housing agencies pursuant to section 6(j) of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect immediately before
the enactment of this Act) and may take actions with respect
to local housing and management authorities that are
authorized under such section with respect to public housing
agencies.
SEC. 432. ANNUAL FINANCIAL AND PERFORMANCE AUDIT.
(a) Requirement.--The Secretary shall require each local
housing and management authority that receives grant amounts
under this Act in a fiscal year to have a financial and
performance audit of the authority conducted for the fiscal
year and to submit the results of the audit to the Secretary
and the Board. Not later than 60 days before submitting a
financial and performance audit to the Secretary and the
Board, the local housing and management authority shall
submit the audit 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) Procedures.-- The requirements for financial and
performance audits shall--
(1) provide for the audit to be conducted by an independent
auditor selected by the authority;
(2) 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; and
(3) be designed to 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.
(c) 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); and
(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.
(d) Single Audit Act Compliance.--An audit under this
section shall be made in a manner so that the audit complies
with the requirements for audits under chapter 75 of title
31, United States Code.
(e) Withholding of Amounts for Costs of Audit.--If the
Secretary determines that a local housing and management
authority has failed to take the actions required to submit
an audit under this section for a fiscal year, the Secretary
may--
(1) arrange for, and pay the costs of, the audit; and
(2) 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.
SEC. 433. ACCREDITATION.
(a) Review Upon Expiration of Previous Accreditation.--The
Accreditation Board shall perform a comprehensive review of
the performance of a local housing and management authority,
in accordance with the procedures established under section
431(b), before the expiration of the term for which a
previous accreditation was granted under this subtitle.
(b) Initial Evaluation.--
(1) In general.--Before entering into an initial block
grant contract under title II or an initial contract pursuant
to section 302 for assistance under title III with any local
housing and management authority, the Board shall conduct a
comprehensive evaluation of the capabilities of the local
housing and management authority.
(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an initial
block grant contract or grant agreement entered into during
the period beginning upon the date of the enactment of this
Act and ending upon the date of the effectiveness of final
regulations establishing the standards, guidelines, and
procedures required under section 431 with any public housing
agency that received amounts under the United States Housing
Act of 1937 during fiscal year 1995.
(c) Determination and Report.--Pursuant to a review or
evaluation under this section, the Board shall determine
whether the authority meets the requirements for
accreditation under section 431(a)(3), shall accredit the
authority if it meets such requirements, and shall submit a
report on the results of the review or evaluation and such
determination to the Secretary and the authority.
(d) Accreditation.--An accreditation under this section
shall expire at the end the term established by the Board in
granting the accreditation, which may not exceed 5 years. The
Board may qualify an accreditation placing conditions on the
accreditation based on the future performance of the
authority.
SEC. 434. CLASSIFICATION BY PERFORMANCE CATEGORY.
Upon completing the accreditation process under section 433
with respect to a local housing and management authority, the
Housing Finance and Accreditation Board shall designate the
authority according to the performance categories under
section 431(a)(2). In determining the classification of an
authority, the Board shall consider the most recent financial
and performance audit under section 432 of the authority and
accreditation reports under section 433(c) for the authority.
SEC. 435. PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS FOR AUTHORITIES AT RISK OF
BECOMING TROUBLED.
(a) In General.--Upon designation of a local housing and
management authority as at risk of becoming troubled under
section 431(a)(2)(C), the Secretary shall seek to enter into
an agreement with the authority providing for improvement of
the elements of the authority that have been identified. An
agreement under this section shall contain such terms and
conditions as the Secretary determines are appropriate for
addressing the elements identified, which may include an on-
site, independent assessment of the management of the
authority.
(b) Powers of Secretary.--If the Secretary determines that
such action is necessary to prevent the local housing and
management authority from becoming a troubled authority, the
Secretary may--
(1) solicit competitive proposals from other local housing
and management authorities and private housing management
agents (which may be selected by existing tenants through
administrative procedures established by the Secretary), to
prepare for any case in which such agents may be needed for
managing all, or part, of the housing administered by the
authority; or
(2) solicit competitive proposals from other local housing
and management authorities and private entities with
experience in construction management, to prepare for any
case in which such authorities or firms may be needed to
oversee implementation of assistance made available for
capital improvement for public housing of the authority.
SEC. 436. PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS AND CDBG SANCTIONS FOR
TROUBLED LHMA'S.
(a) In General.--Upon designation of a local housing and
management authority as a troubled authority under section
431(a)(2)(D), the Secretary shall seek to enter into an
agreement with the authority providing for improving the
management performance of the authority.
(b) Contents.--An agreement under this section between the
Secretary and a local housing and management authority shall
set forth--
(1) targets for improving performance, as measured by the
guidelines and standards established under section 431(a)(1)
and other requirements within a specified period of time,
which shall include targets to be met upon the expiration of
the 12-month period beginning upon entering into the
agreement;
(2) strategies for meeting such targets;
(3) sanctions for failure to implement such strategies; and
(4) to the extent the Secretary deems appropriate, a plan
for enhancing resident involvement in the management of the
local housing and management authority.
(c) Local Assistance in Implementation.--The Secretary and
the local housing and management authority shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, seek the assistance of local
public and private entities in carrying out an agreement
under this section.
(d) Default Under Performance Agreement.--Upon the
expiration of the 12-month period beginning upon entering
into an agreement under this section with a local housing and
management authority, the Secretary shall review the
performance of the authority in relation to the performance
targets and strategies under the agreement. If the Secretary
determines that the authority has failed to comply with the
performance targets established for the expiration of such
period, the Secretary shall take the action authorized under
section 437(b)(2).
(e) CDBG Sanction Against Local Government Contributing to
Troubled Status of LHMA.--If the Secretary determines that
the actions or inaction of any unit of general local
government within which any portion of the jurisdiction of a
local housing and management authority is located has
substantially contributed to the conditions resulting in the
authority being designated under section 431(a)(2)(D) as a
troubled authority, the Secretary may redirect or withhold,
from such unit of general local government any amounts
allocated for such unit under section 106 of such Act.
SEC. 437. OPTION TO DEMAND CONVEYANCE OF TITLE TO OR
POSSESSION OF PUBLIC HOUSING.
(a) Authority for Conveyance.--A contract under section 201
for block grants under title II (including contracts which
amend or supersede contracts previously made (including
contracts for contributions)) may provide that upon the
occurrence of a substantial default with respect to the
covenants or conditions to which the local housing and
management authority is subject (as such substantial default
shall be defined in such contract) or upon designation of the
authority as dysfunctional pursuant to section 431(a)(2)(E),
the local housing and management authority shall be
obligated, at the option of the Secretary, to--
[[Page H4699]]
(1) convey title in any case where, in the determination of
the Secretary (which determination shall be final and
conclusive), such conveyance of title is necessary to achieve
the purposes of this Act; or
(2) deliver to the Secretary possession of the development,
as then constituted, to which such contract relates.
(b) Obligation to Reconvey.--Any block grant contract under
title II containing the provisions authorized in subsection
(a) shall also provide that the Secretary shall be obligated
to reconvey or redeliver possession of the development, as
constituted at the time of reconveyance or redelivery, to
such local housing and management authority or to its
successor (if such local housing and management authority or
a successor exists) upon such terms as shall be prescribed in
such contract, and as soon as practicable after--
(1) the Secretary is satisfied that all defaults with
respect to the development have been cured, and that the
development will, in order to fulfill the purposes of this
Act, thereafter be operated in accordance with the terms of
such contract; or
(2) the termination of the obligation to make annual block
grants to the authority, unless there are any obligations or
covenants of the authority to the Secretary which are then in
default.
Any prior conveyances and reconveyances or deliveries and
redeliveries of possession shall not exhaust the right to
require a conveyance or delivery of possession of the
development to the Secretary pursuant to subsection (a) upon
the subsequent occurrence of a substantial default.
(c) Continued Grants for Repayment of Bonds and Notes Under
1937 Act.--If--
(1) a contract for block grants under title II for an
authority includes provisions that expressly state that the
provisions are included pursuant to this subsection, and
(2) the portion of the block grant payable for debt service
requirements pursuant to the contract has been pledged by the
local housing and management authority as security for the
payment of the principal and interest on any of its
obligations, then--
(A) the Secretary shall (notwithstanding any other
provisions of this Act), continue to make the block grant
payments for the authority so long as any of such obligations
remain outstanding; and
(B) the Secretary may covenant in such a contract that in
any event such block grant amounts shall in each year be at
least equal to an amount which, together with such income or
other funds as are actually available from the development
for the purpose at the time such block grant payments are
made, will suffice for the payment of all installments of
principal and interest on the obligations for which the
amounts provided for in the contract shall have been pledged
as security that fall due within the next succeeding 12
months.
In no case shall such block grant amounts be in excess of the
maximum sum specified in the contract involved, nor for
longer than the remainder of the maximum period fixed by the
contract.
SEC. 438. REMOVAL OF INEFFECTIVE LHMA'S.
(a) Conditions of Removal.--The actions specified in
subsection (b) may be taken only upon--
(1) the occurrence of events or conditions that constitute
a substantial default by a local housing and management
authority with respect to (A) the covenants or conditions to
which the local housing and management authority is subject,
or (B) an agreement entered into under section 435;
(2) designation of the authority as dysfunctional pursuant
to section 431(a)(2)(E);
(3) in the case only of action under subsection (b)(1),
failure of a local housing and management authority to obtain
reaccreditation upon the expiration of the term of a previous
accreditation granted under this subtitle; or
(4) submission to the Secretary of a petition by the
residents of the public housing owned or operated by a local
housing and management authority that is designated as
troubled or dysfunctional pursuant to section 431(a)(2).
(b) Removal Actions.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law or of any block grant contract under title II or any
grant agreement under title III, in accordance with
subsection (a), the Secretary may--
(1) solicit competitive proposals from other local housing
and management authorities and private housing management
agents (which, in the discretion of the Secretary, may be
selected by existing public housing residents through
administrative procedures established by the Secretary) and,
if appropriate, provide for such agents to manage all, or
part, of the housing administered by the local housing and
management authority or all or part of the other functions of
the authority;
(2) take possession of the local housing and management
authority, including any developments or functions of the
authority under any section of this Act;
(3) solicit competitive proposals from other local housing
and management authorities and private entities with
experience in construction management and, if appropriate,
provide for such authorities or firms to oversee
implementation of assistance made available for capital
improvements for public housing;
(4) require the authority to make other arrangements
acceptable to the Secretary and in the best interests of the
public housing residents and assisted families under title
III for managing all, or part of, the public housing
administered by the authority or the functions of the
authority; or
(5) if the Secretary determines that reasonable
opportunities for remedy using the actions under paragraphs
(1) through (4) have failed or are not available, petition
for the appointment of a receiver for the local housing and
management authority to any district court of the United
States or to any court of the State in which any portion of
the jurisdiction of the local housing and management
authority is located, that is authorized to appoint a
receiver for the purposes and having the powers prescribed in
this section.
(c) Emergency Assistance.--The Secretary may make available
to receivers and other entities selected or appointed
pursuant to this section such assistance as is fair and
reasonable to remedy the substantial deterioration of living
conditions in individual public housing developments or other
related emergencies that endanger the health, safety and
welfare of public housing residents or assisted families
under title III.
(d) Powers of Secretary.--If the Secretary takes possession
of an authority, or any developments or functions of an
authority, pursuant to subsection (b)(2), the Secretary--
(1) may abrogate contracts that substantially impede
correction of the substantial default or improvement of the
classification;
(2) may demolish and dispose of assets of the authority in
accordance with subtitle E;
(3) where determined appropriate by the Secretary, may
require the establishment of one or more new local housing
and management authorities;
(4) may consolidate the authority into other well-managed
local housing and management authorities with the consent of
such well-managed authorities;
(5) shall not be subject to any State or local laws that,
in the determination of the receiver, substantially impede
correction of the substantial default or improvement of the
classification; and
(6) shall have such additional authority as a district
court of the United States has the authority to confer under
like circumstances upon a receiver to achieve the purposes of
the receivership.
The Secretary may appoint, on a competitive or noncompetitive
basis, an individual or entity as an administrative receiver
to assume the Secretary's responsibility under this paragraph
for the administration of a local housing and management
authority. The Secretary may delegate to the administrative
receiver any or all of the powers of the Secretary under this
subsection. Regardless of any delegation under this
subsection, an administrative receiver may not require the
establishment of one or more new local housing and management
authorities pursuant to paragraph (3) unless the Secretary
first approves such establishment. For purposes of this
subsection, the term ``local housing and management
authority'' includes any developments or functions of a local
housing and management authority under any section of this
title.
(e) Receivership.--
(1) Required appointment.--In any proceeding under
subsection (b)(5), upon a determination that a substantial
default has occurred, and without regard to the availability
of alternative remedies, the court shall appoint a receiver
to conduct the affairs of the local housing and management
authority in a manner consistent with this Act and in
accordance with such further terms and conditions as the
court may provide. The receiver appointed may be another
local housing and management authority, a private management
corporation, the Secretary, or any other appropriate entity.
The court shall have power to grant appropriate temporary or
preliminary relief pending final disposition of the petition
by the Secretary.
(2) Powers of receiver.--If a receiver is appointed for a
local housing and management authority pursuant to subsection
(b)(5), in addition to the powers accorded by the court
appointing the receiver, the receiver--
(A) may abrogate contracts that substantially impede
correction of the substantial default or improvement of the
classification;
(B) may demolish and dispose of assets of the authority in
accordance with subtitle E;
(C) where determined appropriate by the Secretary, may
require the establishment of one or more new local housing
and management authorities, to the extent permitted by State
and local law; and
(D except as provided in subparagraph (C), shall not be
subject to any State or local laws that, in the determination
of the receiver, substantially impede correction of the
substantial default or improvement of the classification.
For purposes of this paragraph, the term ``local housing and
management authority'' includes any developments or functions
of a local housing and management authority under any section
of this title.
(3) Termination.--The appointment of a receiver pursuant to
this subsection may be terminated, upon the petition of any
party, when the court determines that all defaults have been
cured or the local housing and management authority will be
able to make the same amount of progress in correcting the
management of the housing as the receiver.
(f) Liability.--If the Secretary takes possession of an
authority pursuant to subsection (b)(2) or a receiver is
appointed pursuant to subsection (b)(5) for a local housing
and management authority, the Secretary or the receiver shall
be deemed to be acting in the capacity of the local housing
and management authority (and not in the official capacity as
Secretary or other official) and any liability incurred shall
be a liability of the local housing and management authority.
SEC. 439. MANDATORY TAKEOVER OF CHRONICALLY TROUBLED PHA'S.
(a) Removal of Agency.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of this Act, not later than the expiration of the 180-day
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act,
the
[[Page H4700]]
Secretary shall take one of the following actions with
respect to each chronically troubled public housing agency:
(1) Contracting for management.--Solicit competitive
proposals for the management of the agency pursuant to
section 437(b)(1) and replace the management of the agency
pursuant to selection of such a proposal.
(2) Takeover.--Take possession of the agency pursuant to
section 437(b)(2) of such Act.
(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``chronically troubled public housing agency'' means a public
housing agency that, as of the date of the enactment of this
Act, is designated under section 6(j)(2) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect immediately before the
enactment of this Act) as a troubled public housing agency
and has been so designated continuously for the 3-year period
ending upon such date of enactment; except that such term
does not include any agency that owns or operates less than
1250 public housing dwelling units and that the Secretary
determines can, with a reasonable amount of effort, make such
improvements or remedies as may be necessary to remove its
designation as troubled within 12 months.
SEC. 440. TREATMENT OF TROUBLED PHA'S.
(a) Effect of Troubled Status on CHAS.--The comprehensive
housing affordability strategy (or any consolidated plan
incorporating such strategy) for the first year beginning
after the date of the enactment of this Act for the State or
unit of general local government in which any troubled public
housing agency is located shall not be considered to comply
with the requirements under section 105 of the Cranston-
Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act unless such plan
includes a description of the manner in which the State or
unit will assist such troubled agency in improving its
operations to remove such designation.
(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``troubled public housing agency'' means a public housing
agency that--
(1) upon the date of the enactment of this Act, is
designated under section 6(j)(2) of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (as in effect immediately before the enactment of
this Act) as a troubled public housing agency; and
(2) is not a chronically troubled public housing agency, as
such term is defined in section 438(b) of this Act.
SEC. 441. MAINTENANCE OF AND ACCESS TO RECORDS.
(a) Keeping of Records.--Each local housing and management
authority shall keep such records as may be reasonably
necessary to disclose the amount and the disposition by the
authority of the proceeds of assistance received pursuant to
this Act and to ensure compliance with the requirements of
this Act.
(b) Access to Documents.--The Secretary, the Inspector
General for the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
and the Comptroller General of the United States shall each
have access for the purpose of audit and examination 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.
SEC. 442. ANNUAL REPORTS REGARDING TROUBLED LHMA'S.
The Secretary shall submit a report to the Congress
annually, as a part of the report of the Secretary under
section 8 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development
Act, that--
(1) identifies the local housing and management authorities
that are designated as troubled or dysfunctional under
section 431(a)(2) and the reasons for such designation;
(2) identifies the local housing and management authorities
that have lost accreditation pursuant to section 432; and
(3) describes any actions that have been taken in
accordance with sections 433, 434, 435, and 436.
SEC. 443. APPLICABILITY TO RESIDENT MANAGEMENT CORPORATIONS.
The Secretary shall apply the provisions of this subtitle
to resident management corporations in the same manner as
applied to local housing and management authorities.
SEC. 444. INAPPLICABILITY TO INDIAN HOUSING.
The provisions of sections 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436,
438, and 442 shall not apply to public housing developed or
operated pursuant to a contract between the Secretary and an
Indian housing authority.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title IV?
If not, the Clerk will designate title V.
The text of title V is as follows:
TITLE V--REPEALS AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS
SEC. 501. REPEALS.
(a) In General.--The following provisions of law are hereby
repealed:
(1) United states housing act of 1937.--The United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.).
(2) Assisted housing allocation.--Section 213 of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
1439).
(3) Public housing rent waivers for police.--Section 519 of
the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42
U.S.C. 1437a-1).
(4) Occupancy preferences and income mix for new
construction and substantial rehabilitation projects.--
Subsection (c) of section 545, and section 555, of the
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C.
1437f note).
(5) Treatment of certificate and voucher holders.--
Subsection (c) of section 183 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1987 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note).
(6) Retroactive payment for annual adjustment factors.--
Section 801 of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development Reform Act of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note).
(7) Excessive rent burden data.--Subsection (b) of section
550 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act
(42 U.S.C. 1437f note).
(8) Section 8 disaster relief.--Sections 931 and 932 of the
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C.
1437c note).
(9) Moving to opportunity for fair housing.--Section 152 of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
1437f note).
(10) Report regarding fair housing objectives.--Section 153
of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (42
U.S.C. 1437f note).
(11) Section 8 community investment demonstration.--Section
6 of the HUD Demonstration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1437f
note).
(12) Special projects for elderly or handicapped
families.--Section 209 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1438).
(13) Access to pha books.--Section 816 of the Housing Act
of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 1435).
(14) Miscellaneous provisions.--Subsections (b)(1), (c),
and (d) of section 326 of the Housing and Community
Development Amendments of 1981 (Public Law 97-35, 95 Stat.
406; 42 U.S.C. 1437f note).
(15) Payment for development managers.--Section 329A of the
Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1981 (42
U.S.C. 1437j-1).
(16) Purchase of pha obligations.--Section 329E of the
Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1981 (12
U.S.C. 2294a).
(17) Procurement of insurance by pha's.--
(A) In the item relating to ``administrative provisions''
under the heading ``Management and Administration'' in title
II of the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and
Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations
Act, 1991, the penultimate undesignated paragraph of such
item (Public Law 101-507; 104 Stat. 1369).
(B) In the item relating to ``administrative provisions''
under the heading ``Management and Administration'' in title
II of the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and
Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations
Act, 1992, the 19th through 23d undesignated paragraphs of
such item (Public Law 102-139; 105 Stat. 758).
(18) Public housing childhood development.--Section 222 of
the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of 1983 (12 U.S.C.
1701z-6 note).
(19) Indian housing childhood development.--Section 518 of
the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (12
U.S.C. 1701z-6 note).
(20) Public housing comprehensive transition
demonstration.--Section 126 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1987 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note).
(21) Public housing one-stop perinatal services
demonstration.--Section 521 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 1437t note).
(22) Public housing mincs demonstration.--Section 522 of
the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42
U.S.C. 1437f note).
(23) Public housing energy efficiency demonstration.--
Section 523 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 1437g note).
(24) Omaha homeownership demonstration.--Section 132 of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (Public Law
102-550; 106 stat. 3712).
(25) Public and assisted housing youth sports programs.--
Section 520 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 11903a).
(b) Savings Provision.--The repeals made by subsection (a)
shall not affect any legally binding obligations entered into
before the date of the enactment of this Act. Any funds or
activities subject to a provision of law repealed by
subsection (a) shall continue to be governed by the provision
as in effect immediately before such repeal.
SEC. 502. CONFORMING AND TECHNICAL PROVISIONS.
(a) Allocation of Elderly Housing Amounts.--Section 202(l)
of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q(l)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Consideration in allocating assistance.--Assistance
under this section shall be allocated in a manner that
ensures that the awards of the assistance are made for
projects of sufficient size to accommodate facilities for
supportive services appropriate to the needs of frail elderly
residents.''.
(b) Eligibility for Assisted Housing.--
(1) General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
for purposes of determining eligibility for admission to
assisted housing, a person shall not be considered to have a
disability or a handicap solely because of the prior or
current illegal use of a controlled substance (as defined in
section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act) or solely by
reason of the prior or current use of alcohol.
(2) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the term
``assisted housing'' means housing designed primarily for
occupancy by elderly persons or persons with disabilities
that is assisted pursuant to this Act, the United States
Housing Act of 1937, section 221(d)(3) or 236 of the National
Housing Act, section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959, section
101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, or
section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act.
(3) Continued occupancy.--This subsection may not be
construed to prohibit the continued
[[Page H4701]]
occupancy of any person who is a resident in assisted housing
on the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Amendment to Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of
1983.--Section 227(d)(2) of the Housing and Urban-Rural
Recovery Act of 1983 (12 U.S.C. 1701r-1(d)(2)) is amended by
inserting ``the United States Housing Act of 1996,'' after
``the United States Housing Act of 1937,''.
(d) Review of Drug Elimination Program Contracts.--
(1) Requirement.--Notwithstanding the repeal under section
501(a)(26), the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
shall investigate all security contracts awarded by grantees
under the Public and Assisted Housing Drug Elimination Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. 11901 et seq.) that are public housing
agencies that own or operate more than 4,500 public housing
dwelling units--
(A) to determine whether the contractors under such
contracts have complied with all laws and regulations
regarding prohibition of discrimination in hiring practices;
(B) to determine whether such contracts were awarded in
accordance with the applicable laws and regulations regarding
the award of such contracts;
(C) to determine how many such contracts were awarded under
emergency contracting procedures;
(D) to evaluate the effectiveness of the contracts; and
(E) to provide a full accounting of all expenses under the
contracts.
(2) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete the
investigation required under paragraph (1) and submit a
report to the Congress regarding the findings under the
investigation. With respect to each such contract, the report
shall (A) state whether the contract was made and is
operating, or was not made or is not operating, in full
compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and (B) for
each contract that the Secretary determines is in such
compliance in a personal certification of such compliance by
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
(3) Actions.--For each contract that is described in the
report under paragraph (2) as not made or not operating in
full compliance with applicable laws and regulation, the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall promptly
take any actions available under law or regulation that are
necessary--
(A) to bring such contract into compliance; or
(B) to terminate the contract.
(e) References.--Except as provided in section 271 and
501(b), any reference in any other Federal law, Executive
order, rule, regulation, or delegation of authority, or any
document of or pertaining to--
(1) public housing or housing assisted under the United
States Housing Act of 1937 is deemed to refer to public
housing assisted under title II of this Act;
(2) to assistance under section 8 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 is deemed to refer to assistance under
title III of this Act; and
(3) to assistance under the United States Housing Act of
1937 is deemed to refer to assistance under this Act.
SEC. 503. AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING DRUG
ELIMINATION ACT OF 1990.
(a) Short Title, Purposes, and Authority to Make Grants.--
Chapter 2 of subtitle C of title V of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act
of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11901 et seq.) is amended by striking the
chapter heading and all that follows through section 5123 and
inserting the following:
``CHAPTER 2--COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS AGAINST CRIME
``SEC. 5121. SHORT TITLE.
``This chapter may be cited as the `Community Partnerships
Against Crime Act of 1996'.
``SEC. 5122. PURPOSES.
``The purposes of this chapter are to--
``(1) improve the quality of life for the vast majority of
law-abiding public housing residents by reducing the levels
of fear, violence, and crime in their communities;
``(2) broaden the scope of the Public and Assisted Housing
Drug Elimination Act of 1990 to apply to all types of crime,
and not simply crime that is drug-related; and
``(3) reduce crime and disorder in and around public
housing through the expansion of community-oriented policing
activities and problem solving.
``SEC. 5123. AUTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS.
``The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may make
grants in accordance with the provisions of this chapter for
use in eliminating crime in and around public housing and
other federally assisted low-income housing projects to (1)
local housing and management authorities, and (2) private,
for-profit and nonprofit owners of federally assisted low-
income housing.''.
(b) Eligible Activities.--
(1) In general.--Section 5124(a) of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act
of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11903(a)) is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting
``and around'' after ``used in'';
(B) in paragraph (3), by inserting before the semicolon the
following: ``, including fencing, lighting, locking, and
surveillance systems'';
(C) in paragraph (4), by striking subparagraph (A) and
inserting the following new subparagraph:
``(A) to investigate crime; and'';
(D) in paragraph (6)--
(i) by striking ``in and around public or other federally
assisted low-income housing projects''; and
(ii) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon; and
(E) by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following
new paragraphs:
``(7) providing funding to nonprofit public housing
resident management corporations and resident councils to
develop security and crime prevention programs involving site
residents;
``(8) the employment or utilization of one or more
individuals, including law enforcement officers, made
available by contract or other cooperative arrangement with
State or local law enforcement agencies, to engage in
community- and problem-oriented policing involving
interaction with members of the community in proactive crime
control and prevention activities;
``(9) programs and activities for or involving youth,
including training, education, recreation and sports, career
planning, and entrepreneurship and employment activities and
after school and cultural programs; and
``(10) service programs for residents that address the
contributing factors of crime, including programs for job
training, education, drug and alcohol treatment, and other
appropriate social services.''.
(2) Other lhma-owned housing.--Section 5124(b) of the Anti-
Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11903(b)) is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``drug-related crime in housing owned by
public housing agencies'' and inserting ``crime in and around
housing owned by local housing and management authorities'';
and
(ii) by striking ``paragraphs (1) through (7)'' and
inserting ``paragraphs (1) through (10)''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``public housing agency'' and inserting
``local housing and management authority''; and
(ii) by striking ``drug-related'' and inserting
``criminal''.
(c) Grant Procedures.--Section 5125 of the Anti-Drug Abuse
Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11904) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 5125. GRANT PROCEDURES.
``(a) LHMA's With 250 or More Units.--
``(1) Grants.--In each fiscal year, the Secretary shall
make a grant under this chapter from any amounts available
under section 5131(b)(1) for the fiscal year to each of the
following local housing and management authorities:
``(A) New applicants.--Each local housing and management
authority that owns or operates 250 or more public housing
dwelling units and has--
``(i) submitted an application to the Secretary for a grant
for such fiscal year, which includes a 5-year crime
deterrence and reduction plan under paragraph (2); and
``(ii) had such application and plan approved by the
Secretary.
``(B) Renewals.--Each local housing and management
authority that owns or operates 250 or more public housing
dwelling units and for which--
``(i) a grant was made under this chapter for the preceding
Federal fiscal year;
``(ii) the term of the 5-year crime deterrence and
reduction plan applicable to such grant includes the fiscal
year for which the grant under this subsection is to be made;
and
``(iii) the Secretary has determined, pursuant to a
performance review under paragraph (4), that during the
preceding fiscal year the agency has substantially fulfilled
the requirements under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph
(4).
``(2) 5-year crime deterrence and reduction plan.--Each
application for a grant under this subsection shall contain a
5-year crime deterrence and reduction plan. The plan shall
describe, for the local housing and management authority
submitting the plan--
``(A) the nature of the crime problem in public housing
owned or operated by the local housing and management
authority;
``(B) the building or buildings of the local housing and
management authority affected by the crime problem;
``(C) the impact of the crime problem on residents of such
building or buildings; and
``(D) the actions to be taken during the term of the plan
to reduce and deter such crime, which shall include actions
involving residents, law enforcement, and service providers.
The term of a plan shall be the period consisting of 5
consecutive fiscal years, which begins with the first fiscal
year for which funding under this chapter is provided to
carry out the plan.
``(3) Amount.--In any fiscal year, the amount of the grant
for a local housing and management authority receiving a
grant pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be the amount that
bears the same ratio to the total amount made available under
section 5131(b)(1) as the total number of public dwelling
units owned or operated by such authority bears to the total
number of dwelling units owned or operated by all local
housing and management authorities that own or operate 250 or
more public housing dwelling units that are approved for such
fiscal year.
``(4) Performance review.--For each fiscal year, the
Secretary shall conduct a performance review of the
activities carried out by each local housing and management
authority receiving a grant pursuant to this subsection to
determine whether the agency--
``(A) has carried out such activities in a timely manner
and in accordance with its 5-year crime deterrence and
reduction plan; and
``(B) has a continuing capacity to carry out such plan in a
timely manner.
``(5) Submission of applications.--The Secretary shall
establish such deadlines and requirements for submission of
applications under this subsection.
``(6) Review and determination.--The Secretary shall review
each application submitted under this subsection upon
submission and shall approve the application unless the
application
[[Page H4702]]
and the 5-year crime deterrence and reduction plan are
inconsistent with the purposes of this chapter or any
requirements established by the Secretary or the information
in the application or plan is not substantially complete.
Upon approving or determining not to approve an
application and plan submitted under this subsection, the
Secretary shall notify the local housing and management
authority submitting the application and plan of such
approval or disapproval.
``(7) Disapproval of applications.--If the Secretary
notifies an authority that the application and plan of the
authority is not approved, not later than the expiration of
the 15-day period beginning upon such notice of disapproval,
the Secretary shall also notify the authority, in writing, of
the reasons for the disapproval, the actions that the
authority could take to comply with the criteria for
approval, and the deadlines for such actions.
``(8) Failure to approve or disapprove.--If the Secretary
fails to notify an authority of approval or disapproval of an
application and plan submitted under this subsection before
the expiration of the 60-day period beginning upon the
submission of the plan or fails to provide notice under
paragraph (7) within the 15-day period under such paragraph
to an authority whose application has been disapproved, the
application and plan shall be considered to have been
approved for purposes of this section.
``(b) LHMA's With Fewer Than 250 Units and Owners of
Federally Assisted Low-Income Housing.--
``(1) Applications and plans.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under this chapter, a local housing and management
authority that owns or operates fewer than 250 public housing
dwelling units or an owner of federally assisted low-income
housing shall submit an application to the Secretary at such
time, in such manner, and accompanied by such additional
information as the Secretary may require. The application
shall include a plan for addressing the problem of crime in
and around the housing for which the application is
submitted, describing in detail activities to be conducted
during the fiscal year for which the grant is requested.
``(2) Grants for lhma's with fewer than 250 units.--In each
fiscal year the Secretary may, to the extent amounts are
available under section 5131(b)(2), make grants under this
chapter to local housing and management authorities that own
or operate fewer than 250 public housing dwelling units and
have submitted applications under paragraph (1) that the
Secretary has approved pursuant to the criteria under
paragraph (4).
``(3) Grants for federally assisted low-income housing.--In
each fiscal year the Secretary may, to the extent amounts are
available under section 5131(b)(3), make grants under this
chapter to owners of federally assisted low-income housing
that have submitted applications under paragraph (1) that the
Secretary has approved pursuant to the criteria under
paragraphs (4) and (5).
``(4) Criteria for approval of applications.--The Secretary
shall determine whether to approve each application under
this subsection on the basis of--
``(A) the extent of the crime problem in and around the
housing for which the application is made;
``(B) the quality of the plan to address the crime problem
in the housing for which the application is made;
``(C) the capability of the applicant to carry out the
plan; and
``(D) the extent to which the tenants of the housing, the
local government, local community-based nonprofit
organizations, local tenant organizations representing
residents of neighboring projects that are owned or assisted
by the Secretary, and the local community support and
participate in the design and implementation of the
activities proposed to be funded under the application.
In each fiscal year, the Secretary may give preference to
applications under this subsection for housing made by
applicants who received a grant for such housing for the
preceding fiscal year under this subsection or under the
provisions of this chapter as in effect immediately before
the date of the enactment of the United States Housing Act of
1996.
``(5) Additional criteria for federally assisted low-income
housing.--In addition to the selection criteria under
paragraph (4), the Secretary may establish other criteria for
evaluating applications submitted by owners of federally
assisted low-income housing, except that such additional
criteria shall be designed only to reflect--
``(A) relevant differences between the financial resources
and other characteristics of local housing and management
authorities and owners of federally assisted low-income
housing; or
``(B) relevant differences between the problem of crime in
public housing administered by such authorities and the
problem of crime in federally assisted low-income
housing.''.
(d) Definitions.--Section 5126 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act
of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11905) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2);
(2) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``section'' before
``221(d)(4)'';
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) (as so amended)
as paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Local housing and management authority.--The term
`local housing and management authority' has the meaning
given the term in title I of the United States Housing Act of
1996.''.
(e) Implementation.--Section 5127 of the Anti-Drug Abuse
Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11906) is amended by striking
``Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act'' and
inserting ``United States Housing Act of 1996''.
(f) Reports.--Section 5128 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of
1988 (42 U.S.C. 11907) is amended--
(1) by striking ``drug-related crime in'' and inserting
``crime in and around''; and
(2) by striking ``described in section 5125(a)'' and
inserting ``for the grantee submitted under subsection (a) or
(b) of section 5125, as applicable''.
(g) Funding and Program Sunset.--Chapter 2 of subtitle C of
title V of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 is amended by
striking section 5130 (42 U.S.C. 11909) and inserting the
following new sections:
``SEC. 5130. FUNDING.
``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this chapter such
sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 1996.
``(b) Allocation.--Of any amounts available, or that the
Secretary is authorized to use, to carry out this chapter in
any fiscal year--
``(1) 85 percent shall be available only for assistance
pursuant to section 5125(a) to local housing and management
authorities that own or operate 250 or more public housing
dwelling units;
``(2) 10 percent shall be available only for assistance
pursuant to section 5125(b)(2) to local housing and
management authorities that own or operate fewer than 250
public housing dwelling units; and
``(3) 5 percent shall be available only for assistance to
federally assisted low-income housing pursuant to section
5125(b)(3).
``SEC. 5131. PROGRAM TERMINATION.
``The program under this chapter shall terminate at the end
of September 30, 1996. No grants may be made under the
program after such date.''.
(h) Conforming Amendments.--The table of contents in
section 5001 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law
100-690; 102 Stat. 4295) is amended--
(1) by striking the item relating to the heading for
chapter 2 of subtitle C of title V and inserting the
following:
``Chapter 2--Community Partnerships Against Crime'';
(2) by striking the item relating to section 5122 and
inserting the following new item:
``Sec. 5122. Purposes.'';
(3) by striking the item relating to section 5125 and
inserting the following new item:
``Sec. 5125. Grant procedures.'';
and
(4) by striking the item relating to section 5130 and
inserting the following new items:
``Sec. 5130. Funding.
``Sec. 5131. Program termination.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title V?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, let me just understand. I know that there is a
discussion taking place on the other side of the aisle at the moment
over the Roemer amendment. Do we have an agreement? We have the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] here for her amendment. That
is amendment No. 42.
amendment no. 42 offered by ms. waters
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 42 offered by Ms. Waters: At the end of title
V, insert the following new section:
SEC. 504. LIMITATION ON EXTENT OF USE OF LOAN GUARANTEES FOR
HOUSING PURPOSES.
Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1992 (42 U.S.C. 5308) is amended by inserting after
subsection (h) the following new section:
``(i) Limitation on Use.--Of any amounts obtained from
notes or other obligations issued by an eligible public
entity or public agency designated by an eligible public
entity and guaranteed under this section pursuant to an
application for a guarantee submitted after the date of the
enactment of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1992, the aggregate amount used for the purposes described in
clauses (2) and (4) of subsection (a), and for other housing
activities under the purposes described in clauses (1) and
(3) of subsection (a), may not exceed 10 percent of such
amounts obtained by the eligible public entity or agency.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of Wednesday,
May 8, 1996, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] and a Member
opposed will each control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is really not a complicated amendment. Early on when I came to
Congress, I discovered something called section 108 loan guarantee
funds in HUD. These were funds that basically are used to provide
economic development assistance to cities. It is a fund or a loan
guarantee type program that is not scored in the budget.
When I discovered this item, I moved to expand the opportunity for
cities to
[[Page H4703]]
have economic development programs that would increase the job
opportunities, that would support businesses, that would basically
direct some attention toward commercial development.
One of the things I have been very concerned about is the fact that
we have put an emphasis oftentimes on developing housing and low-income
housing, but the problem is precisely what we have created in public
housing projects. We have provided some housing opportunities and
basically placed poor people on top of each other without any
businesses and without any services.
So I thought that the use of these section 108 loan guarantee funds
would have well served our cities if we had an opportunity to support
business and commerce so that we do not continue to have housing and
low-income housing without businesses in those communities that would
provide goods and services and job opportunities.
Section 108 loan guarantee funds I was able to expand to the tune of
about $2 billion over 5 years. All of the cities have been applying for
these funds. Many of the cities welcome the opportunity to have some
funds by which they could create projects working with the business
community to expand job opportunities, to expand entrepreneurship. But
some of the cities have begun to use this money in ways other than
economic development that was anticipated.
I recognized that some of the cities have a need to be very creative
in the way that they use these section 108 loan guarantee funds and
they put a little bit off maybe into some infrastructure, maybe a
little bit off into some housing. But my appeal here is to say let us
put a cap on how much of this money can be taken and further used maybe
for housing or anything else.
Let us really pay attention to how we can empower communities and
develop real economic development so that in fact the people that we
say that we want to make independent, we create some opportunities for
them to be independent.
We hope, we know that small businesses, for example, create more job
opportunities than any other entities in America. We know that, to the
degree that we are able to develop small businesses, we expand job
opportunities.
I do not have oftentimes the opportunity to come to this floor and to
really tell Members what I understand about business and economic
development. There are those who would like to say all she and those
others care about is welfare, all they care about is low-income
housing, all they care about are government expenditures for the poor.
That absolutely is not true. Many of us understand a lot more about
business and business development and how to really support commerce
and entrepreneurs in these communities than we often have an
opportunity to demonstrate.
I am here today because section 108 loan guarantee funds in HUD is a
real opportunity to create economic development projects. This loan
guarantee basically is given to those cities and the CDBG moneys are
kind of used as a guarantee working with HUD. They get with local
business persons, and they think about utilizing the resources of local
government. Maybe there are some land opportunities. Maybe there are
some programs in local government that they can match with some
investment by the local entrepreneurs and this loan guarantee
opportunity, and they come up with projects that they can locate in
these communities and not only support business, small business and
entrepreneurship but do job creation.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues must pay more attention to what the
Government can do to help create jobs in our community. We want welfare
to go away, we need jobs. We want people to be able to use the training
that they are supposed to be getting through the use of our job
training programs. There must be a job at the end of these job training
programs. Do we want JTPA to be viable? I simply ask that my colleagues
support me. Join hands in supporting that we limit the use of section
108 so that the money is not siphoned off into other projects but goes
into economic development. I ask for an aye vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition to the
amendment?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of sympathy for what the
gentlewoman from California just said with respect to some of the
points and the concerns that she has. It is a truism that, if all we
deal with is housing in a particular community, we are failing that
community. No community has just a housing, affordable housing problem.
If it has an affordable housing problem, it probably also has an
economic development problem, an education program, a job training
problem. It has a problem in terms of access to basic banking services
and affordable grocery markets and all the things that more affluent
communities rely on that help make them healthy.
Mr. Chairman, my concern is that first of all we are trying to take
this whole subject up of CDBG and community development block programs
and section 108 guarantee and the successor bill that will be coming
down 2 or 3 months further down the pike in which we will begin to look
at this very closely to ensure that there is maximum flexibility and
the maximum ability to target resources to ensure that there is a
relationship between the economic development and the affordable
housing that we have.
However, I have grave concerns about the way this particular
amendment has been drafted because it targets and mandates that only 10
percent of the money can be used for housing. In certain communities,
especially those in more rural areas, the need for infrastructure for
development of an entire block are more trying to be developed at the
same time, the need to have a cost-effective development require the
section 108 guarantee program.
Mr. Chairman, it is exactly why we have this program, to front end
the money because it is more cost effective to do it up front as
opposed to doing it year after year after year. When you are doing a
housing development, you need to put in new streets, new lights, new
utilities. You need that section 108 program to go forward.
If we had more flexibility in this amendment, I think it would be
worthy of closer consideration. But to say to communities that only 10
percent of the money can be used for housing and 90 percent can be used
for economic development, without frankly identifying exactly how that
money can be spent, without proper consideration by the committee or
having hearings, I have a concern and a problem with that.
{time} 1500
Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly must oppose this amendment, but I do not
oppose the concern of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters]. I
do not oppose the gentlewoman's commitment on this. I think she is
right in terms of her concept, and I pledge to her that I am willing to
continue to work closely with her to make sure the communities are
integrated more closely, especially commerce with respect to affordable
housing.
We are in the process, Mr. Chairman, of trying to negotiate something
that I think will provide some flexibility. I mean to speak to a
particular point while some of the staffs are trying to work out some
of the technical aspects of a possible compromise here that will allow
for both economic and home ownership opportunities and the use of
section 108 for developing homes.
Let me say also the need for commercial development; later on there
is going to be an amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr.
Hayworth] which provides an opportunity for Native American houisng,
and one of the most important parts of that amendment, which was a bill
that was filed earlier, introduced earlier, by myself and many Members
of our side of the aisle was to provide not only maximum flexibility in
respect for the nation-nation relationship in terms of Native American
Indian country, but also to provide for the first time the same type of
loan guarantee program that has brought home ownership and economic
development to so many communities in America.
[[Page H4704]]
The relationship between economic development and housing, especially
affordable housing, is a strong one. As I say, no community has just an
affordable housing program. If people had the capability to have jobs,
it would enable them to have an income so they can make their own
choices, and we would not have those same needs for affordable housing.
Unfortunately, we do not have the same relationship and targeting that
is necessary. Those are mostly locally based solutions in the end.
Organizations like List and Enterprise are doing that throughout the
country, creating a synergy where commercial enterprise and housing is
built together, planned together. Local communities are involved in the
outcome and the strategies in getting there, and that is exactly the
right model that we ought to be following because that is the
successful model.
The first year and a half of my chairmanship, one of the things I did
was to back up and to say let us find out what is going on right out
there. One of the things that is right, one of the successes that is
happening throughout our country, is in self-help housing, is an
integrated commercial and residential development, mostly by entities
like List and Enterprise.
Let me suggest that if we can work out a compromise on this to allow
for both economic development and home ownership opportunities through
this section 108 program, I think we will preserve both of our
principles of flexibility and also providing for the initiative to have
more economic development.
modification of amendment offered by ms. waters
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my
amendment to accommodate the concerns of the chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification of amendment offered by Ms. Waters: in the
proposed new subsection (i) of section 108 of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1992, strike out ``10 percent''
and insert ``50 percent''.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from California that the amendment be modified?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered
by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title V?
amendment no. 45 offered by mr. durbin
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 45 offered by Mr. Durbin: At the end of title
V of the bill, insert the following new section:
SEC. 515. PROHIBITION AGAINST ILLEGAL POSSESSION OR DISCHARGE
OF FIREARMS IN PUBLIC HOUSING ZONES.
(a) Congressional Findings.--The Congress finds and
declares that--
(A) crime, particularly crime involving firearms, is a
pervasive, nationwide problem;
(B) crime at the local level is exacerbated by the
interstate movement of firearms;
(C) firearms and ammunition move easily in interstate
commerce and illegal firearms have been found in increasing
numbers in and around public housing zones;
(D) in fact, even before the sale of a firearm, the gun,
its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from
which they are made have considerably moved in interstate
commerce;
(E) while criminals freely move from State to State,
ordinary citizens and foreign visitors may fear to travel to
or through certain parts of the country due to concern about
violent crime and gun violence;
(F) the occurrence of violent crime in public housing zones
has resulted in a decline in the quality of public housing in
our country;
(G) this decline in the quality of public housing has an
adverse impact on interstate commerce and the foreign
commerce of the United States;
(H) States, localities, and local housing and management
authorities find it almost impossible to handle gun-related
crime by themselves; even States, localities, and local
housing and management authorities that have made strong
efforts to prevent, detect, and punish gun-related crime find
their efforts unavailing due in part to the failure or
inability of other States or localities to take strong
measures; and
(I) the Congress has power, under the interstate commerce
clause and other provisions of the Constitution, to enact
measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nation's
public housing by enactment of this section.
(b) Prohibitions.--
(1) Possession.--It shall be unlawful for any person, in or
affecting interstate or foreign commerce, to possess a
firearm in violation of any other Federal law or of any State
or local law, at a place that the person knows is in a public
housing zone.
(2) Discharge.--
(A) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person, in or
affecting interstate or foreign commerce, to discharge or
attempt to discharge a firearm, knowingly or with reckless
disregard for the safety of another, at a place that the
person knows is in a public housing zone.
(B) Exceptions.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the
discharge of a firearm--
(i) by a person employed by a local housing and management
authority to provide security for a public housing
development in the public housing zone, acting within the
scope of such employment; or
(ii) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her
official capacity.
(c) Penalties.--Whoever violates subsection (b) shall be
fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not
more than 5 years, or both. Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, a term of imprisonment imposed under this
subsection shall not run concurrently with any other term of
imprisonment imposed under any other provision of law. Except
for the authorization of a term of imprisonment of not more
than 5 years made in this subsection, for the purposes of any
other law a violation of subsection (b) shall be deemed to be
a misdemeanor.
(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the
following definitions shall apply:
(1) The terms ``firearm'', ``interstate or foreign
commerce'', ``person'', and ``whoever'', have the meanings
given such terms in section 921(a) of title 18, United States
Code.
(2) The term ``public housing zone'' means in or upon--
(A) the real property comprising the public housing
developments of any local housing and management authority;
or
(B) any public property which is at a distance of not more
than 1,000 feet from property referred to in subparagraph
(A).
(e) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to conduct
engaged in after the end of the 60-day period that begins
with the date of the enactment of this Act.
(f) Gun-Free Zone Signs.--Federal, State, and local
authorities (including local housing and management
authorities) are encouraged to cause signs to be posted
around public housing zones giving warning of the prohibition
against the illegal possession of a firearm in such zones.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of Wednesday,
May 8, 1996, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] and a Member
opposed will each control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I hope this amendment will receive bipartisan support.
What we are trying to address in this amendment is a very serious life-
and-death problem in public housing across America.
Several weeks ago I was taken on a tour of the Chicago housing
projects. The people who took me on the tour pointed out buildings in
the projects, fully occupied buildings, that were under the control of
drug gangs. Despite the best efforts of security personnel and Chicago
police, these gangs literally took control of housing units,
terrorizing the residents, selling narcotics, brandishing weapons and
firing those weapons at will.
Anyone who wants this documented should read the story entitled
``There Are No Children Here,'' by Alex Kotlowitz, a Wall Street
Journal correspondent who followed the lives of two tiny children
growing up in public housing in the city of Chicago. It is an
incredible story.
Mr. Chairman, the worst part of the story is the violence that takes
place in public housing today.
This amendment addresses clearly and plainly the question of
possessing firearms in public housing, and it attempts to establish a
national standard which says very simply that we prohibit the
possession of illegal, illegal firearms in public housing and public
housing zones, that we prohibit the reckless discharge or attempted
discharge of any firearm in public housing, and those found guilty of
the crime will be subject to 5 years in prison, a $5,000 fine, or both.
Is this necessary? Let me use the city of Chicago as an example. In
one sweep of public housing projects in the city of Chicago between
April and June of last year, this is what they confiscated: 170
handguns, 192 assault weapons, assault weapons, over $133,000 in cash,
thousands of grams of controlled narcotics and substances with a street
value in excess of $2 million.
[[Page H4705]]
This public housing belongs to the residents, but it also belongs to
the taxpayers of America. We owe it to the families, we certainly owe
it to the children in that public housing, to keep their lives safe
from harm.
Those who would bring in illegal firearms or discharge them in public
housing should be subject to the full brunt of the law, not just
tenants, but those who come onto public housing grounds and take
advantage of the poor families living there.
I commend this amendment to all of my colleagues, Democrat and
Republican, and reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
man consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have several concerns, and I am compelled to oppose
this amendment. The first concern is that this provision federalizes
State law. On page 3, line 2, this provision makes it a Federal
violation to violate this amendment.
My second concern is that nowhere in this provision do we require
criminal intent to be a factor in terms of prohibiting the use or the
possession of firearms in an area of public housing. For example, if
the State law allows a single mother to carry a gun and she lives in
public housing, she can not protect herself.
Lastly and most importantly, let me say this is not the vehicle to be
talking about gun control. We are trying to get housing policy done
right now. We have dramatic arguments that have been made already with
respect to section 8 public housing income mixes, different aspects of
protections. To interject gun arguments right now I think is frankly a
red herring, it is not the appropriate place to be inserting this, and
frankly I think there are a number of these concerns that most Members
should share in terms of insuring that the intent of the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Durbin] is carried out.
So, frankly, I think that if the gentleman were interested in really
having something done with respect to in and around the property around
public housing, we will be happy to try and work with him as time went
on, but this is just the wrong vehicle.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
McCollum], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime.
(Mr. McCOLLUM] asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman who is offering this
amendment is doing it with all good intent because I am sure, as he
does, I share the basic premise that we should not have criminals out
there discharging firearms or using them or possessing them in a public
housing unit. Nobody in America wants crime to be going on in public
housing units.
But the problem with this amendment is that it prohibits law-abiding
citizens from possessing firearms, from having them to defend
themselves, or to discharge those firearms in the defense of their own
home in a public housing unit.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I believe the language,
the specific language, says illegal firearms.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I only have 1 minute.
The fact of the matter is that if he has the firearm, somebody has
that firearm, I think that person ought to have the right to possess
that firearm and to be able to protect it. That firearm is only going
to be illegal maybe because New York City makes it illegal to possess
one, something of that nature.
The truth of the matter is we should not, as a Congress, federalize
local ordinances, which this does, makes a Federal crime out of it if
you violate a local ordinance in a situation like this. And in addition
to that, I do not believe, and I do not think most of us believe,
anybody who is a law-abiding citizen should be prohibited from having a
firearm in their possession in a public housing unit.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I find this incredible. I offer an amendment which
prohibits the possession of illegal firearms, illegal firearms, in
public housing, and it is being resisted by the Republican majority.
Illegal firearms.
Do we want to end crime in this country with sensible gun regulation?
Every time we raise the issue of firearms on this floor, will we have
people go into a panic?
We are talking about illegal firearms. We are talking about the
discharge of firearms in public housing, terrorizing families and their
children. We are talking about drug gangs.
Mr. Chairman, the resistance to this amendment tells me that many of
the people who are opposing it have not even been to these public
housing projects and spoken to the families.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, let me just quote from
the law that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] has proposed:
``to posses a firearm in violation of any other federal law or any
State or local law at a place that person knows.''
The fact of the matter is this is restricted to illegal firearms. How
can our colleagues possibly suggest that we ought to allow illegal
firearms use in public housing? This is plain and simple, black and
white.
This is, once again, the hidden arm at the NRA at work on the floor
of the House of Representatives, once again gutting basic protections
of the vulnerable people of this country.
I strongly support the Durbin amendment.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from the State of Georgia [Mr. Barr].
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
this time to me.
My distinguished colleague on the other side just mentioned that,
well, he does not know if any of us have been in housing projects. Mr.
Chairman, my colleagues are about to hear from one that has, that has
prosecuted crimes in our housing projects, that has been to funerals of
people who have been killed in housing projects, that has met with the
men and women whose sons and daughters have been shot and injured in
drive-by shootings, and we certainly agree with the gentleman that we
should be doing everything that we can to protect those people. But
this amendment is simply not the way to do it.
There are page after page, volume after volume of Federal laws that
have been enforced, that can be enforced, that should be enforced that
protect against these people who use firearms in the commission of a
crime.
But, very frankly, I am not interested in making criminal a woman who
defends herself in that housing project, the same elderly woman that my
colleague spoke of eloquently a few moments ago that wants to use a
firearm to protect herself and yet who may run afoul of some other law.
I think protecting those people, giving them the right to protect
themselves, is absolutely paramount, and I am opposed to this thinly
veiled effort to take that right away.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side be
given an additional 10 minutes for debate on the amendment.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
preferential motion offered by mr. volkmer
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Volkmer moves that the Committee do now rise and report
the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken.
{time} 1515
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] is recognized
for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be wise for all Members
of this body to read this amendment,
[[Page H4706]]
especially page 3, as I did about a half an hour ago over in my office.
I had asked my staff this morning to get a copy of this amendment,
because the way it was reported in the digest that we received this
morning, I had some reservations. I wanted to see the amendment.
Lo and behold, when I read the amendment, on page 3, under the
heading, subparagraph 2, it says: ``Discharge. In general, it shall be
unlawful for any person in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce
to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm knowingly, or with
reckless disregard for the safety of another, at a place that the
person knows is in a public housing zone.'' that may sound harmless,
but let us put it in actual conditions of what may happen.
I am residing in a public housing project. I have an apartment. I
also am a hunter. I have some guns. That is not illegal in my housing
project. Now, about 9 or 10 o'clock at night, a drug addict needing
money busts through my door, holding a gun aimed at me. I grab my gun.
He fires and misses. I fire and hit him. I only wound him. Guess what,
Mr. Chairman? He gets charged for armed robbery. I get charged under
this, and I could get 5 years because I have discharged a firearm in a
public housing zone, knowingly and with reckless disregard for safety,
because I was not worried about his safety, I guarantee you.
I am sure the gentleman did not mean that, Mr. Chairman, but that is
they way the amendment reads.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman, I am sure, is familiar with
the defense of self-defense.
Mr. VOLKMER. Yes, but that is no defense to this offense.
Mr. DURBIN. It is a common-law defense.
Mr. VOLKMER. Not to this offense. No, it is not.
Mr. DURBIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman wants to put it in there,
an exception for self-defense, then I would say yes. But the gentleman
does not have that in here. He just says anybody who knowingly and with
intent, with reckless disregard for the safety of another.
Mr. DURBIN. If the gentleman will yield one more time, Mr. Chairman,
I will accept the gentleman's amendment. I would add the language
``except in cases of self-defense.''
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, why does he
want to upgrade a local ordnance involving guns to a Federal offense?
Mr. DURBIN. If the gentleman will further yield, I think the
gentleman is aware of the fact that we have more than a casual interest
in public housing in America. Federal taxpayers have a massive
investment in public housing. What we are attempting to do, I say to my
friend, the gentleman from Missouri, is to remove illegal firearms from
public housing, firearms which are being used to terrorize.
Mr. VOLKMER. That is not necessarily so.
Mr. DURBIN. Some State laws cover it, some do not. We are trying to
establish a national uniform standard that illegal firearms in public
housing and the illegal discharge of those firearms is against the law.
Mr. VOLKMER. They are not federally illegal. What you are telling me
is if a local city body decides that there are not going to be any
guns, as the gentleman has in Illinois, there are not going to be any
guns in this community, none whatsoever, and I have a gun in that
community and it is in a public housing project, I have a Federal
offense of 5 years, not just a violation of a local ordnance.
That is the other objection I have to it. I do not believe that we
should make every local ordnance a Federal offense if it involves guns
in a public housing project. No, I do not believe that.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to
understand, is the gentleman's objection.
Mr. VOLKMER. Two objections. We cleared up one.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. If it is the one objection, that if you
are possessing an illegal firearm and you use that illegal firearm----
Mr. VOLKMER. Illegal because of what? Because of a local zoning
ordinance that says you cannot have a gun in this town?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Let us go back to what the proposal
says. It says ``in possession of a firearm violation of any State law
or any local law.''
Mr. VOLKMER. Any local law. That is my objection, any local law.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. What you are saying is, if you are
possessing a gun illegally and you use that in defense of yourself----
Mr. VOLKMER. No, that has nothing to do with this. One has nothing to
do with the other.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the
gentleman, what is his objection?
Mr. VOLKMER. I am saying, you are elevating a local ordnance to a 5-
year Federal offense. We do not do it in anything else. We do not make
a DWI, a DWI which could kill people, we do not make that a Federal
offense.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim 5 minutes in opposition.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, was that not a point of
personal privilege?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman had a preferential motion that the
enacting clause be stricken. He is recognized under that motion for 5
minutes. Someone in opposition to that motion is also recognized for 5
minutes. The gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] has claimed that.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], the distinguished deputy whip.
(Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, we have a housing bill before us. There
is a motion to change this whole system by the gentleman from Missouri,
[Mr. Volkmer].
Mr. Chairman, when I started to look at it, if I did not know my
colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Durbin], better, I would
say this probably smacks of maybe even senatorial politics, but I am
sure that that is not the case.
On the other hand, when we start to look at the situation, I believe
that the ordinance for the city of Chicago prohibits any type of
firearm or weapon, possession and use. The State of Illinois prohibits
certain types of weapons and use. We also have a requirement of an FOID
card, possession, and almost a 6-week waiting period before any type of
possession of a firearm.
Also, there are various countries in Illinois that have, whether it
is valid or not, county restrictions. I am not sure which law that my
friend, the gentleman from Illinois, is going to ascribe and make that
a Federal Law. Is it the State Law? Is it the municipal ordinances? Is
it the county statutes?
Mr. Chairman, I think certainly the ability of trying to figure out
or to sort out for local and State and county officials, whether you
are from the sheriff's office and you have that jurisdiction, or if you
are from the Chicago city police, from that jurisdiction, or the
Illinois State Police, from that jurisdiction, certainly they have
conflicting jurisdictions, and really it makes a mess of the system
that is before us, I would think probably we ought to take this
amendment for what it is, trying to get a little plus up in an area
that some people are not well known in, and let it go at that. I ask
that we vote against this.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida,
[Mr. McCollum], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on
Crime.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, for I want to
explain why we are talking about this. First of all, I do not think we
ought to rise, but we ought to understand that under the underlying
amendment that is here, it is not the possession of an illegal firearm
that is the problem. It is the illegal possession. That is the language
that says here. It says we are going to federalize all local ordinances
that make it illegal to possess a firearm in public housing.
[[Page H4707]]
I do not think we have any business doing that. The firearms could be
perfectly legal. They could be lawful. They do not have to be assault
weapons or something. As long as you possess a firearm in many
communities, the very possession of an ordinary gun is illegal or
unlawful in that community. Now we are going to make it a Federal crime
if that is the case. I think that is wrong.
Second, the fact of the matter is that under the discharge provisions
of this, whatever we are going to do with self-defense really is
irrelevant. I think under the Lopez decision, which we saw last year
come down, it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government be
involved in saying that we are going to make it a crime in every public
housing unit in this country to discharge a firearm. We already know
under the Supreme Court ruling you cannot do that with respect to a
school.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. Barr].
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I think this particular provision
is a wolf in sheep's clothing. As the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Crime correctly pointed out, its reach would be vast.
It would be vast, indeed, because what it does by its very terms and
its implication would be to federalize a huge category of potential
crimes, in addition to creating a new substantive crime, in and of
itself.
I would urge Members to look very carefully at this, to put aside the
self-defense language that we have heard of, because it does not go to
the root, the heart of the problem, with this amendment. That is its
vast scope and the federalism problems that we have, in addition to
those other problems that the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Crime has already pointed out that relate to its
underlying constitutionality.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply tell Members that there are other
constitutional infirmities that appear on the face of this particular
provision.
The CHAIRMAN. All time on the motion has been used.
Does the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] wish to withdraw his
motion?
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
motion.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Missouri.
There was no objection.
modification of amendment offered by mr. durbin
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer a
modification to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification of amendment offered by Mr. Durbin:
On page 3 line 11 of the amendment, add after the word
``zone'', the following ``, except in cases of self-
defense.''
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair please advise me of the
remaining time on the amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] and the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] each have 1 minute remaining on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair advise me of who has the
right to close?
The CHAIRMAN. The time in opposition is controlled by the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Lazio]. He would have the right to close.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my 1 remaining minute.
Mr. Chairman, I hope the Members and those watching this debate are
paying close attention. I introduced an amendment which said that it is
a Federal crime to possess illegal firearms in public housing projects,
or to discharge firearms, except in cases of self-defense. Did Members
notice the opposition that came to the floor? What family in America
would argue against the proposition that you should keep illegal
firearms out of their home and not fire them at will? Yet, when we
raise the question of firearms on the floor of this House of
Representatives, the gun lobby comes rolling through. You cannot
mention those words.
That is mindless. This has nothing to do with the second amendment.
This is a question of common sense. American taxpayers who own public
housing with the residents and the families who live there need the
peace of mind and security that this amendment will bring. I hope that
my colleagues will push aside the gun lobby once and forever, and say
when it comes to illegal firearms, we do not want them in public
housing projects. We do not want them anywhere.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, as designee, I claim the final minute in
opposition to the amendment, and I yield to the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. McCollum].
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman from Illinois
is well-intentioned. Whatever his intent is, the language that is
written here does not express that intent. There is a possession crime
and it is going to be federalized in here. It is a possession not of an
illegal firearm but of any firearm. If the possession happened to be
unlawful under a local community act, then it would become an unlawful
Federal crime. That is a wrong procedure. We should not do it.
In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, this amendment, no matter what the
intent, would mean that somebody who has a permit, a lawful permit to
carry a gun, to protect themselves, perhaps because of a stalker who
has been after them, would no longer be allowed to discharge or possess
that firearm in a public housing unit of this country or it would be a
Federal crime. It is wrong. It is not the right way to proceed.
Nobody wants criminals discharging firearms in public housing. There
are already provisions, a Federal law, that prohibited it in the course
of a drug transaction or that kind of thing where there is a real
Federal nexus, but not to protect yourself in self-defense. Everybody
ought to have the right to possess a gun to do that. Vote ``no'' on
this amendment.
{time} 1530
The CHAIRMAN. All time on this amendment has expired.
preferential motion offered by ms. waters
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Waters moves that the Committee do now rise and report
the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken.
The CHAIRMAN. The motion offered by the gentlewoman from California
[Ms. Waters] is not timely because there must be a change in the bill
before a second motion striking the enacting clause is in order;
therefore, the motion to strike the enacting clause is out of order at
this point.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes have
it.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Are there further amendments to title V?
amendment offered by mr. ney
Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. NEY: At the end of title V of the
bill, insert the following new section:
SEC. 515. ELIGIBILITY FOR PARTICIPATION IN FEDERAL FLOOD
INSURANCE PROGRAM.
The placement of any manufactured or mobile home on any
site, shall not affect the eligibility of any community to
participate in the Federal flood insurance program under the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster
Protection Act of 1973 (notwithstanding that such placement
may fail to comply with any elevation or flood damage
mitigation requirements), if--
(1) such manufactured or mobile home was previously located
on such site;
(2) such manufactured or mobile home was relocated from
such site because of flooding that threatened or affected
such site; and
(3) such replacement is conducted not later than the
expiration of the 180-day period
[[Page H4708]]
that begins upon the subsidence (in the area of such site) of
the body of water that flooded to a level considered lower
than flood levels.
Mr. NEY (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
Ohio?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to
object, I reserve a point of order against the amendment. I had tried
to raise a point of order against the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman reserving a point of order?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Yes, I want to reserve the point of
order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman want to insist on the point of order
at this point?
Mr KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I do not want to insist on it at this
point. I want to enter into a dialogue with the gentleman that is
offering the amendment to clarify my understanding of what the intent
of the amendment is.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts has the option to
insist on or reserve the point of order at this point. If he wants to
reserve the point of order, the Chair will then recognize the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Ney] for the purposes of explaining his amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have
to do that? Does he have the time or do I have the time?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman can reserve the point now, but at a later
time during the consideration of the amendment he may make his point of
order.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am asking how long is
he allowed? Am I allowed to speak and then to provide him the time?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman can raise the point of order at this
point or he can reserve the point of order. If he reserves the point of
order, he can allow the gentleman from Ohio his 5 minutes in support of
the amendment. The gentleman from Massachusetts could insist on a point
of order at that point. At the Chair's discretion he could speak
against the amendment and at the conclusion of that insist on the point
of order. Remember, there is a 10-minute allocation for any amendment
under the agreement of May 8.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, in that case, I will
reserve the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Kennedy]
reserves a point of order on the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will complete the reading of the amendment.
The Clerk concluded the reading of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of Wednesday,
May 8, 1996, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney] will be recognized for 5
minutes in support of his amendment, and a Member opposed will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney].
Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, on January 20, 1996, eastern Ohio and the northern
panhandle of West Virginia were struck with a disastrous flood. There
are many residents in this area that are owners of mobile homes.
Several of those homeowners transported their mobile homes to safe
areas away from the rising water before the mobile homes were damaged.
After this area was drained, after the flood waters receded, the
owners then moved their homes back and in some cases attempted to move
their homes back, because according to FEMA, these mobile homeowners
must build expensive 12-foot-tall foundations if they want to move
their homes back to the areas that were affected.
Even though it was all along the Ohio River, and the northern
panhandle of West Virginia in particular, this was called to our
attention about this FEMA regulation by a local newspaper, the Wheeling
Intelligencer. We were getting calls from not only Wheeling, WV, but
Powhatan, OH, in particular. These are two areas, but I am sure this
applies to many people along that entire Ohio River.
In some cases the mayor in, for example, Powhatan, OH, Mayor Bell is
forced to tell people, ``You can not bring your trailer back onto your
land.'' Because if the mayor does not do that, aid is going to be cut
to that municipality.
So the intent is to let people come back onto their land. The problem
we have got is that FEMA, however, is saying they have got to build a
12-foot foundation, bring their mobile home back, put it on top of that
12-foot foundation, which is ridiculous. If another flood occurs, they
can move the mobile home off and then they can bring the mobile home
back once the flood waters have receded.
So there are a lot of people, Mr. Chairman, that are simply in a very
bad position as a result of this rule.
The amendment simply states that the placement of any manufactured or
mobile home on any site shall not affect the eligibility of any
community to participate in the Federal Flood Insurance Program under
the National Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, so long as the home
was previously located on the site, the home was relocated from the
site because of the threat of flooding and such replacement is
conducted no later than 180 days after a flood subsides.
I spoke to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] and this
has affected his area. I feel this is a bipartisan amendment. It is my
understanding hopefully that there will be no opposition to this but I
just want to urge, this is very important to people in the regions
concerned. I urge your support.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter
into a dialog with the gentleman with regard to his amendment. I have
worked very hard, along with other Members of the Committee on Banking
and Financial Services, over the course of the last several years to
reform the flood insurance program of this country, a program which has
been in disastrous shape itself.
We have often found ourselves rewarding individuals, homeowners that
build homes in flood plains knowing that floods are going to come and
knowing that when they do come, simply by buying relatively inexpensive
flood insurance they can simply have his home rebuild at Federal
taxpayers' expense. It is a horrific situation. It is one that ends up
driving up the cost of flood insurance for everyone else and
discouraging flood insurance for millions of Americans that otherwise
might participate.
As I understand the amendment that the gentleman is trying to get
accomplished here, what he is saying is that there are people that live
in mobile homes that live in flood plains that can anticipate floods
are coming; that then hook their trailers up to cars or whatever, drive
them out of the flood plains when the flood comes, and then when flood
goes away, they take their mobile homes and drive them back into the
flood plain. Is that correct?
Mr. NEY. That is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Does this cover those homes that do not
move?
Mr. NEY. It does not, Mr. Chairman. These are for the homes, this is
word-specific, that were moved out and brought back. Right now the
mayor has to tell the people, for example, ``You cannot bring them back
because the aid is going to be cut off to the entire community.'' If
they took the home out, they brought the home back after the flood,
this applies to those individuals.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would
continue to yield, I am just trying to understand it here now. If these
people are all so mobile and they can anticipate the floods, then why
do they need the flood insurance? Does the gentleman know what I mean?
They can just hook up and get out of there.
I would like to have a further understanding as to how we distinguish
between the guy who could not quite get hooked up in time, and he ends
up getting flooded out and then we pay for the insurance to rebuild his
home.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney] has
expired.
[[Page H4709]]
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I now have my own time, is that
correct, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. The gentleman has 5 minutes in
opposition to the amendment if he so chooses.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am maintaining the
point of order, preserving the point of order on germaneness until we
have this understanding.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized on his own time for 5
minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear to the offerer, the individual
offering the amendment, that I have been to West Virginia and I
understand that there are some families that are forced to live in
flood plains simply because in many cases the mining companies or the
Federal Government owns all the land outside of the flood plain, and
these individuals are forced to live there. So I want to be sensitive
to those needs but I do not want to be irresponsible with Federal tax
dollars and reward individuals that stay in flood plains, knowing that
they are going to be reimbursed by the Federal Government, and abuse
the system.
I want to make certain that until it is clear to me, and know that
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], who chaired the disaster task
force last year, is concerned about this as well, we want to make very
clear that we are not going to be supportive of this amendment until we
understand what the details are.
Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I am happy to yield to the gentleman
from Ohio.
Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, at issue here is not a matter of the insurance
or anybody trying to scam the system. What has happened here, the
Federal agency--by the way, I want to say FEMA did a good job in
representing people when the President declared a disaster--but what
has happened is someone in FEMA said, ``Okay, you bring the trailers
back.'' This has nothing to do with an insurance measure. ``You bring
them back, take the piece of ground and build a 12-foot cinder block
foundation, put it up on top of there and you can come back.''
So if they do not do that, the entire city of Wheeling, WV, the
entire city of Powhatan, OH, lose all their aid unless they make people
do that. It is not a matter of insurance or whether they had it or not.
It is a matter of whether they took the trailer out, away from harm's
way, and took it back. They cannot physically place it on their own
land unless a 12-foot cinder block foundation has been built.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, the problem is that
we asked FEMA in the legislation, the reform of the flood insurance
program last year, we asked FEMA to draw up plans to make certain that
we were not sending people back into the flood plain. If that flood
plain is in fact 12 feet high where people are locating these homes,
then it seems to me that FEMA was only doing its job by requiring that
we do not in fact allow people to rebuild.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Durbin].
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney],
when our task force looked into Federal disaster policy, we learned
that in the 1950's the Federal Government assumed responsibility for 5
percent of the cost of natural disasters. We now assume responsibility
for 95 percent of the cost and it adds to our deficit every time.
The policy which the gentleman is trying to subvert would allow
people to move back in the flood plain and leave the Federal taxpayers
liable and vulnerable again in the event of disaster. I think that is a
mistake.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman I know what his intent is,
to help these families, but bringing them back into harm's way merely
increases the exposure of the Federal Treasury and the Federal
taxpayers.
Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I would be happy to yield. Let me check
how much time we have left.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I am happy to yield to the gentleman
from Ohio.
Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I will make it real quick.
In all due respect, it does not do that. This does not cost the
taxpayers. They have to have insurance. People are stuck, they cannot
go back to their homes. Senior citizens are having to live with their
families right now. They cannot go back.
To put a good foot forward on this, I will work with the gentleman in
the conference committee. They can be required to have insurance when
they go back. They just simply cannot move. One day they had their
mobile home there, there was a huge flood, and now they cannot put it
back. They are stuck. They have do place to live.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, I very much
appreciate and am very sensitive to the concerns that the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Ney] has described, and my good friend from West
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] has also spoken to me about it, although very
briefly.
Mr. Chairman, I would pledge to work with the gentleman, and I am
sure that if we ask Chairman Lazio, that we can find a mechanism in
another bill coming up if we have an opportunity to delve into this. If
what the gentleman is suggesting is the case, where we are simply
providing protections for mobile homeowners that are having burdensome
requirements placed on them by FEMA that have no bearing on living in
the flood zone and are unprecedented and unworkable, then I would
pledge to working with the gentleman to making certain that they get
the flood insurance that they need.
{time} 1545
I do not think we ought to be doing that in this bill.
I would ask the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], would you pledge
working with us to make certain that we can work this out? We have to
reauthorize the flood insurance program in any event this year.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we
obviously have a great deal of work to do in terms of reauthorizing the
flood insurance program. We have had various discussions on this in the
last Congress. I am particularly sensitive to it, representing a
coastal area, but I know that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney] feels
strongly about offering this amendment. I think it is an acceptable
amendment from my perspective. I support the amendment. I hope we can
address your concerns as we go forward through the process conference.
point of order
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the rules of the House
provide an amendment must be germane to the subject matter of the bill
under consideration. The subject matter of H.R. 2406 is the
deregulation of public and tenant-based housing. Although the manager's
amendment expands the scope of the bill, it still does not affect flood
control matters. Therefore, I insist on my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] raises a
point of order against the amendment. Does the gentleman from Ohio wish
to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I do. Obviously I am not pleased. I feel very
sorry for the people.
Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained.
Therefore, the amendment is not in order.
Are there other amendments to title IV?
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to point out that the Chair
incorrectly prevented the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] from
speaking previously, because there is a very distinct, minute, but very
important difference between obtaining unanimous consent that a motion
striking the enacting clause be withdrawn, and such motion being
defeated. If such a motion is defeated, there must be a change in the
bill by adoption of an amendment before that motion can be made again
on the same day.
[[Page H4710]]
Because the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] asked unanimous
consent to have his motion withdrawn, it was as if it did not happen.
So the Chair made a mistake in preventing the gentlewoman from
California from being recognized earlier. The Chair apologizes to the
gentlewoman for that, and clarifies to the committee the situation, and
now invites the gentlewoman to be recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I appreciate that. I
know it was inadvertent. I appreciate the opportunity to at least
express my views on the Durbin amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I first would like to share with this House that I have
the highest respect for Congressman Durbin. I consider him a friend and
I consider him a leader, and I consider him to have been the author of
some of the best legislation that has ever been presented before this
august body.
However, I do rise to disagree with the amendment that the gentleman
is offering for this legislation. I know that his intentions are good,
and I know that he is concerned about violence and gunfire and other
kinds of things in public housing projects.
I also would like to say, I have absolutely nothing in common with
the NRA. I do not like guns, I wish there were none in our society.
However, I have a passion for fairness. This passion for fairness
drives me not to allow there to be law created for certain segments of
our society, even though we are trying very desperately to solve
problems.
It is illegal to have an illegal weapon. It is illegal to have an
illegal weapon. Whether you live in housing projects, whether you live
in condominiums, whether you live in cities, whether you live in rural
communities, on farms, it does not matter. You are in violation of the
law if you possess an illegal firearm, and that is for everybody, and
we should not change that.
We should not create law again for special segments of our society.
There is absolutely no reason why we should move our concerns to
housing projects of America and say ``Oh, but you are different. You
are different because you live in public housing. We are going to
create an additional law for you.''
Somehow it is not enough for your gun to be illegal. Your gun is
illegal, illegal, illegal, and we are going to create a whole new
Federal crime, because you happen to live in a housing project.
I suppose I could submit to this body a number of reasons why someone
may find themselves in that position, but I choose not to try and make
that argument, and I think there are some legitimate reasons why
someone may find themselves in that unfortunate position of trying to
defend themselves with an illegal weapon. But I choose, rather, to just
simply deal with what I think we responsible public policymakers should
be about. We should be about creating law for everybody. We should be
about making sure that we do not use our power and our influence to
single out any segment of our society and say somehow your crime is a
worse crime than somebody else's.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I greatly respect the gentlewoman from
California and have the same admiration for her legislative record as
she does for mine.
Having said that though, we make a point of saying, for example, we
are going to have drug-free school zones, gun-free school zones. We
single out certain areas of vulnerability. The gentlewoman knows, as I
do, many of the families in public housing today are terrorized by drug
gangs and violent criminals who prey upon children and families that
need extra protection. That is the reason for this amendment.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just say that is
not a good argument, and it is not synonymous when you talk about what
we do with schools.
As a matter of fact, let me ask you in my own way, if in fact those
terrorists, those people holed up in Montana somewhere, who are part of
some kind of militia, do not live in public housing projects. However,
they live out in the rural areas. We have people who live in
communities that have firearms, illegal and otherwise. Some of them
right now have the attention of this Nation. They are holed up. The FBI
is not moving in on them, they want to be sensitive in the way they
capture them, but they are dangerous people. They are very dangerous
and they have decided to defy every law in America. They decided they
are going to have their guns, they are not going to pay any taxes. They
decided they are going to shoot FBI agents and others who would dare
challenge them about the fact they are breaking the law. But somehow,
under your proposition, their guns would not be as illegal as the
firearms that would be discharged in housing projects.
It does not make good sense. I tell you, again, I do not like
firearms, I do not like guns and I wish we did not have any. But I
cannot sit here and allow this kind of public policy to proceed through
this House without challenging it. Again, my passion in life is that no
matter what the law, it is fair, that it treats everybody the same. No
matter what the law, it does not take those who may not have the
political clout and somehow single them out for the kind of laws that
we would not assign to other people.
I say to you, an illegal gun is an illegal gun, and we have laws on
the books in the state that will take care of those who have them, who
would discharge them, who would brandish them, who would do anything.
And I think it should be that way. I think we should apprehend them and
we should apply the law to the fullest extent.
Do I think we should create a special law for public housing project
people who would fire an arm, but leave all the militia out there in
America discharging firearms, and somehow they would not come under the
same law? No, I do not think so.
Mr. Chairman, that is my argument. I think it makes good sense.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title V?
amendment offered by Mr. cardin
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Cardin: Title V of the bill,
insert at the end of such title the following new section:
SSEC. 515. CONSULTATION WITH AFFECTED AREAS IN SETTLEMENT OF
LITIGATION.
In negotiating any settlement of, or consent decree for,
any litigation regarding public housing or rental assistance
(under title III of this Act or the United States Housing Act
of 1937, as in effect before the enactment of this Act) that
involves the Secretary and any local housing and management
authority, or any units of general local government, the
Secretary shall consult with any units of general local
government and local housing and management authorities
having jurisdictions that are adjacent to the jurisdiction of
the local housing and management authority involved.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of Wednesday,
May 8, 1996, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] and a Member
opposed will each control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with the process that should be
used in settling lawsuits that involve local housing authorities and
HUD. If I might just refer briefly to the recent settlement of the
Baltimore litigation, initially the local parties entered into a
tentative agreement without consultation with the surrounding counties
that were affected by the lawsuit.
Now, many of us have concern about the Baltimore settlement, the
underlying policy of special aid certificates. The process used denied
the surrounding jurisdictions the opportunity to be heard. HUD slowed
that process down, giving the surrounding counties an opportunity to
have input, and there were improvements that were made as the process
went forward because of consultation with the surrounding
jurisdictions.
This amendment puts the local parties on notice that before they
enter into any settlement involving the local housing authorities, that
the jurisdictions that can be affected by that settlement need to be
consulted and that HUD will consult with local jurisdictions before
they enter into any settlement of such a lawsuit.
Mr. Chairman, let me tell you, I do not believe this amendment is
controversial. HUD has no objections to it. I would urge my colleagues
to accept this amendment.
[[Page H4711]]
Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.
Last night on this floor, Mr. Chairman, I talked about the substance
of the ACLU lawsuit in Baltimore, the fact that special race, class,
and location-based housing vouchers will become public policy outside
the scope of this House, of this Congress, because of government by
consent decree, which is what some groups in our country want to foist
upon the people.
This amendment goes to process. I know with respect to substance he
agrees with me, and I certainly agree with him, and want to lend my
support to his amendment, because as bad as the substance of the
settlement is, the process was just as bad. The lack of notification to
the leaders of subdivisions of the impacted areas in the Baltimore
metropolitan area was wrong, it will always be wrong, and I certainly
am glad to rise today to lend my support to my colleague from Baltimore
County with respect to the poor, horrific process, that was foisted on
the people of the Baltimore metropolitan area in the context of this
lawsuit.
I enjoyed my colloquy with the chairman last night, and I even look
forward to working with my friend from Baltimore County on working with
the policy which is the threshold issue with respect to which groups
HUD is now foisting upon the American people, particularly metropolitan
areas like Baltimore in the future.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition to the
amendment?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
{time} 1600
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I compliment my colleagues from Maryland for bringing
this forward. The shame of it is that we have to resort to legislation
to do what ought to be done by nature, which is to integrate the
community into the decisionmaking process and to ensure that there is a
local voice.
But, Mr. Chairman, I support this effort. Again, I support it only
reluctantly, because we ought not to be required to bring legislation
to the floor to ensure that there is consultation with local
governments. That is a basic framework. We are partners. We are not
imposing our will. We sometimes forget that in Washington. But I
compliment both gentlemen from Maryland, Mr. Ehrlich and Mr. Cardin,
for bringing this amendment forward.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me point out that this is notice to the local
parties to the lawsuits that they need to consult with the local
jurisdictions before going forward.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
The amendment was agreed to.
Are there other amendments to title V?
The Clerk will designate title VI.
The text of title VI is as follows:
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 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).0
(d) Limitation.--The Commission may not make any
recommendations regarding Federal housing policy.
[[Page H4712]]
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. Are there amendments to title VI?
amendment no. 9 offered by mr. hayworth
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. If I am correct, the gentleman's amendment affects
various titles, including title I; is that correct?
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, that is technically correct.
The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman ask unanimous consent that we may
return to title I to include all titles under his amendment?
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we return to
title I for the purposes of offering my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Arizona?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Hayworth:
H.R. 2406
Page 9, strike line 12 and all that follows through page
10, line 12.
Page 13, line 2, after ``Samoa,'' insert ``and''.
Page 13, line 3, strike ``, and Indian tribes''.
Page 13, lines 19 and 20, strike ``or Indian housing
authority''.
Page 14, after line 8, insert the following:
The term does not include any entity that is Indian housing
authority for purposes of the United States Housing Act of
1937 (as in effect before the enactment of this Act) or a
tribally desingated housing entity, as such term is defined
in section 604.
Page 43, after line 4, insert the following new section:
SEC. 114. INAPPLICABILITY TO INDIAN HOUSING.
Except as specifically provided by law, the provisions of
this title, and titles II, III, and IV shall not apply to
public housing developed or operated pursuant to a contract
between the Secretary and an Indian housing authority or to
housing assisted under the Native American Housing Assistance
and Self-Determination Act of 1996.
Page 53, strike line 19 and all that follows through page
54, line 5.
Page 57, line 20, strike ``and Indian''.
Page 89, strike lines 11 through 15.
Page 102, lines 19 and 20, strike ``, except that it does
not include Indian housing authorities''.
Page 144, line 2, strike ``and Indian''.
Page 144, strike lines 11 through 15.
Page 144, line 16, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(c)''.
Page 217, strike lines 16 through 20.
At the end of the bill, insert the following new title:
TITLE VI--NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING ASSISTANCE
SECTION 601. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996''.
SEC. 602. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
The Congress hereby finds 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) there exists a unique relationship between the
Government of the United States and the governments of Indian
tribes and a unique Federal responsibility to Indian people;
(3) the Constitution of the United States invests the
Congress with plenary power over the field of Indian affairs,
and through treaties, statutes, and historical relations with
Indian tribes, the United States has undertaken a trust
responsibility to protect Indian tribes;
(4) the Congress, through treaties, statutes, and the
general course of dealing with Indian tribes, has assumed the
responsibility for the protection and preservation of Indian
tribes and for working with tribes and their members to
improve their socio-economic status so that they are able to
take greater responsibility for their own economic condition;
(5) providing affordable and healthy homes is an essential
element in the special role of the United States in helping
tribes and their members to achieve a socio-economic status
comparable to their non-Indian neighbors;
(6) the need for affordable and healthy homes on Indian
reservations, in Indian communities, and in Native Alaskan
villages is acute and the Federal Government should work not
only to provide housing assistance, but also, to the extent
practicable, to assist in the development of private housing
finance mechanisms on Indian lands to achieve the goals of
economic self-sufficiency and self-determination for tribes
and their members; and
(7) Federal assistance to meet these responsibilities
should be provided in a manner that recognizes the right of
tribal self-governance by making such assistance available
directly to the tribes or tribally designated entities.
SEC. 603. ADMINISTRATION THROUGH OFFICE OF NATIVE AMERICAN
PROGRAMS.
The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall carry
out this title through the
[[Page H4713]]
Office of Native American Programs of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
SEC. 604. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this title, the following definitions shall
apply:
(1) Affordable housing.--The term ``affordable housing''
means housing that complies with the requirements for
affordable housing under subtitle B. The term includes
permanent housing for homeless persons who are persons with
disabilities, transitional housing, and single room occupancy
housing.
(2) Families and persons.--
(A) Single persons.--The term ``families'' includes
families consisting of a single person in the case of (i) an
elderly person, (ii) a disabled person, (iii) a displaced
person, (iv) the remaining members of a tenant family, and
(v) any other single persons.
(B) Families.--The term ``families'' includes families with
children and, in the cases of elderly families, near-elderly
families, and disabled families, means families whose heads
(or their spouses), or whose sole members, are elderly, near-
elderly, or persons with disabilities, respectively. The term
includes, in the cases of elderly families, near-elderly
families, and disabled families, 2 or more elderly persons,
near-elderly persons, or 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.
(C) Absence of children.--The temporary absence of a child
from the home due to placement in foster care shall not be
considered in determining family composition and family size
for purposes of this title.
(D) Elderly person.--The term ``elderly person'' means a
person who is at least 62 years of age.
(E) Person with disabilities.--The term ``person with
disabilities'' means a person who--
(i) has a disability as defined in section 223 of the
Social Security Act,
(ii) is determined, pursuant to regulations issued by the
Secretary, to have a physical, mental, or emotional
impairment which (I) is expected to be of long-continued and
indefinite duration, (II) substantially impedes his or her
ability to live independently, and (III) is of such a nature
that such ability could be improved by more suitable housing
conditions, or
(iii) 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.
(F) Displaced person.--The term ``displaced person'' means
a person displaced by governmental action, or a person whose
dwelling has been extensively damaged or destroyed as a
result of a disaster declared or otherwise formally
recognized pursuant to Federal disaster relief laws.
(G) Near-elderly person.--The term ``near-elderly person''
means a person who is at least 50 years of age but below the
age of 62.
(3) Grant beneficiary.--The term ``grant beneficiary''
means the Indian tribe or tribes on behalf of which a grant
is made under this title to a recipient.
(4) Indian.--The term ``Indian'' means any person who is a
member of an Indian tribe.
(5) Indian area.--The term ``Indian area'' means the area
within which a tribally designated housing entity is
authorized to provide assistance under this title for
affordable housing.
(6) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' means--
(A) any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized
group or community of Indians, including any Alaska Native
village or regional or village corporation as defined in or
established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act, which is recognized as eligible for the special programs
and services provided by the United States to Indians because
of their status as Indians pursuant to the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975; and
(B) any tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community
that--
(i) has been recognized as an Indian tribe by any State;
and
(ii) for which an Indian housing authority is eligible, on
the date of the enactment of this title, to enter into a
contract with the Secretary pursuant to the United States
Housing Act of 1937.
(7) Local housing plan.--The term ``local housing plan''
means a plan under section 612.
(8) 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.
(9) Median income.--The term ``median income'' means, with
respect to an area that is an Indian area, the greater of--
(A) the median income for the Indian area, which the
Secretary shall determine; or
(B) the median income for the United States.
(10) Recipient.--The term ``recipient'' means the entity
for an Indian tribe that is authorized to receive grant
amounts under this title on behalf of the tribe, which may
only be the tribe or the tribally designated housing entity
for the tribe.
(11) Tribally designated housing entity.--The terms
``tribally designated housing entity'' and ``housing entity''
have the following meaning:
(A) Existing iha's.--For any Indian tribe that has not
taken action under subparagraph (B) and for which an Indian
housing authority--
(i) was established for purposes of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 before the date of the enactment of this
title that meets the requirements under the United States
Housing Act of 1937,
(ii) is acting upon such date of enactment as the Indian
housing authority for the tribe, and
(iii) is not an Indian tribe for purposes of this title,
the terms mean such Indian housing authority.
(B) Other entities.--For any Indian tribe that, pursuant to
this Act, authorizes an entity other than the tribal
government to receive grant amounts and provide assistance
under this title for affordable housing for Indians, which
entity 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 or housing entities for Indians,
including regional housing authorities in the State of
Alaska,
the terms mean such entity.
A tribally designated housing entity may be authorized or
established by one or more Indian tribes to act on behalf of
each such tribe authorizing or establishing the housing
entity. Nothing in this title may be construed to affect the
existence, or the ability to operate, of any Indian housing
authority established before the date of the enactment of
this title by a State-recognized tribe, band, nation, pueblo,
village, or community of Indian or Alaska Natives that is not
an Indian tribe for purposes of this title.
(12) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development, except as otherwise
specified in this title.
Subtitle A--Block Grants and Grant Requirements
SEC. 611. BLOCK GRANTS.
(a) Authority.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall
(to the extent amounts are made available to carry out this
title) make grants under this section on behalf of Indian
tribes to carry out affordable housing activities. Under such
a grant on behalf of an Indian tribe, the Secretary shall
provide the grant amounts for the tribe directly to the
recipient for the tribe.
(b) Condition of Grant.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may make a grant under this
title on behalf of an Indian tribe for a fiscal year only
if--
(A) the Indian tribe has submitted to the Secretary a local
housing plan for such fiscal year under section 612; and
(B) the plan has been determined under section 613 to
comply with the requirements of section 612.
(2) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the applicability of
the requirements under paragraph (1), in whole or in part, if
the Secretary finds that an Indian tribe has not complied or
can not complied with such requirements because of
circumstances beyond the control of the tribe.
(c) Amount.--Except as otherwise provided under subtitle B,
the amount of a grant under this section to a recipient for a
fiscal year shall be--
(1) in the case of a recipient whose grant beneficiary is a
single Indian tribe, the amount of the allocation under
section 641 for the Indian tribe; and
(2) in the case of a recipient whose grant beneficiary is
more than 1 Indian tribe, the sum of the amounts of the
allocations under section 641 for each such Indian tribe.
(d) Use for Affordable Housing Activities.--Except as
provided in subsection (f), amounts provided under a grant
under this section may be used only for affordable housing
activities under subtitle B.
(e) Effectuation of LHP.--Except as provided in subsection
(f), amounts provided under a grant under this section may be
used only for affordable housing activities that are
consistent with the approved local housing plan under section
613 for the grant beneficiary on whose behalf the grant is
made.
(f) Administrative Expenses.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, by regulation,
authorize each recipient to use a percentage of any grant
amounts received under this title for any administrative and
planning expenses of the recipient relating to carrying out
this title and activities assisted with such amounts, which
may include costs for salaries of individuals engaged in
administering and managing affordable housing activities
assisted with grant amounts provided under this title and
expenses of preparing a local housing plan under section 612.
(2) Contents of regulations.--The regulations referred to
in paragraph (1) shall provide that--
(A) the Secretary shall, for each recipient, establish a
percentage referred to in paragraph (1) based on the specific
circumstances of the recipient and the tribes served by the
recipient; and
(B) the Secretary may review the percentage for a recipient
upon the written request
[[Page H4714]]
of the recipient specifying the need for such review or the
initiative of the Secretary and, pursuant to such review, may
revise the percentage established for the recipient.
(g) Public-Private Partnerships.--Each recipient shall make
all reasonable efforts, consistent with the purposes of this
title, to maximize participation by the private sector,
including nonprofit organizations and for-profit entities, in
implementing the approved local housing plan for the tribe
that is the grant beneficiary.
SEC. 612. LOCAL HOUSING PLANS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Submission.--The Secretary shall provide for an Indian
tribe to submit to the Secretary, for each fiscal year, a
local housing plan under this section for the tribe (or for
the tribally designated housing entity for a tribe to submit
the plan under subsection (e) for the tribe) and for the
review of such plans.
(2) Locally driven national objectives.--A local housing
plan shall describe--
(A) the mission of the tribe with respect to affordable
housing or, in the case of a recipient that is a tribally
designated housing entity, the mission of the housing entity;
(B) the goals, objectives, and policies of the recipient to
meet the housing needs of low-income families in the
jurisdiction of the housing entity, which shall be designed
to achieve the national objectives under section 621(a); and
(C) how the locally established mission and policies of the
recipient are designed to achieve, and are consistent with,
the national objectives under section 621(a).
(b) 5-Year Plan.--Each local housing plan under this
section for an Indian tribe shall contain, with respect to
the 5-year period beginning with the fiscal year for which
the plan is submitted, the following information:
(1) Locally driven national objectives.--The information
described in subsection (a)(2).
(2) Capital improvement overview.--If the recipient will
provide capital improvements for housing described in
subsection (c)(3) during such period, an overview of such
improvements, the rationale for such improvements, and an
analysis of how such improvements will enable the recipient
to meet its goals, objectives, and mission.
(c) 1-year plan.--A local housing plan under this section
for an Indian tribe shall contain the following information
relating to the upcoming fiscal year for which the assistance
under this title is to be made available:
(1) Financial resources.--An operating budget for the
recipient for the tribe that includes--
(A) identification and a description of the financial
resources reasonably available to the recipient to carry out
the purposes of this title, including an explanation of how
amounts made available will leverage such additional
resources; and
(B) the uses to which such resources will be committed,
including eligible and required affordable housing activities
under subtitle B to be assisted and administrative expenses.
(2) Affordable housing.--For the jurisdiction within which
the recipient is authorized to use assistance under this
title--
(A) a description of the estimated housing needs and the
need for assistance for very low-income and moderate-income
families;
(B) a description of the significant characteristics of the
housing market, indicating how such characteristics will
influence the use of amounts made available under this title
for rental assistance, production of new units,
rehabilitation of old units, or acquisition of existing
units;
(C) an description of the structure, means of cooperation,
and coordination between the recipient and any units of
general local government in the development, submission, and
implementation of their housing plans, including a
description of the involvement of any private industries,
nonprofit organizations, and public institutions;
(D) a description of how the plan will address the housing
needs identified pursuant to subparagraph (A), describing the
reasons for allocation priorities, and identify any obstacles
to addressing underserved needs;
(E) a description of any homeownership programs of the
recipient to be carried out with respect to affordable
housing assisted under this title and the requirements and
assistance available under such programs;
(F) a certification that the recipient will maintain
written records of the standards and procedures under which
the recipient will monitor activities assisted under this
title and ensure long-term compliance with the provisions of
this title;
(G) a certification that the recipient will comply with
title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 in carrying out this
title, to the extent that such title is applicable;
(H) a statement of the number of families for whom the
recipient will provide affordable housing using grant amounts
provided under this title;
(I) a statement of how the goals, programs, and policies
for producing and preserving affordable housing will be
coordinated with other programs and services for which the
recipient is responsible and the extent to which they will
reduce (or assist in reducing) the number of households with
incomes below the poverty line; and
(J) a certification that the recipient has obtain insurance
coverage for any housing units that are owned or operated by
the tribe or the tribally designated housing entity for the
tribe and assisted with amounts provided under this Act, in
compliance with such requirements as the Secretary may
establish.
(3) Indian housing developed under united states housing
act of 1937.--A plan describing how the recipient for the
tribe will comply with the requirements under section 623
relating to low-income housing owned or operated by the
housing entity that was developed pursuant to a contract
between the Secretary and an Indian housing authority
pursuant to the United States Housing Act of 1937, which
shall include--
(A) a certification that the recipient will maintain a
written record of the policies of the recipient governing
eligibility, admissions, and occupancy of families with
respect to dwelling units in such housing;
(B) a certification that the recipient will maintain a
written record of policies of the recipient governing rents
charged for dwelling units in such housing, including--
(i) the methods by which such rents are determined; and
(ii) an analysis of how such methods affect--
(I) the ability of the recipient to provide affordable
housing for low-income 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
recipient for use for such housing;
(C) a certification that the recipient will maintain a
written record of the standards and policies of the recipient
governing maintenance and management of such housing, and
management of the recipient with respect to administration of
such housing, including--
(i) housing quality standards;
(ii) routine and preventative maintenance policies;
(iii) emergency and disaster plans;
(iv) rent collection and security policies;
(v) priorities and improvements for management of the
housing; and
(vi) priorities and improvements for management of the
recipient, including improvement of electronic information
systems to facilitate managerial capacity and efficiency;
(D) a plan describing--
(i) the capital improvements necessary to ensure long-term
physical and social viability of such housing; and
(ii) the priorities of the recipient for capital
improvements of such housing based on analysis of available
financial resources, consultation with residents, and health
and safety considerations;
(E) a description of any such housing to be demolished or
disposed of, a timetable for such demolition or disposition,
and any information required under law with respect to such
demolition or disposition;
(F) a description of how the recipient will coordinate with
tribal and State welfare agencies to ensure that residents of
such housing will be provided with access to resources to
assist in obtaining employment and achieving self-
sufficiency; and
(G) a description of the requirements established by the
recipient that promote the safety of residents of such
housing, facilitate the housing entity undertaking crime
prevention measures (such as community policing, where
appropriate), allow resident input and involvement, and allow
for creative methods to increase resident safety by
coordinating crime prevention efforts between the recipient
and tribal or local law enforcement officials.
(4) Indian housing loan guarantees and other housing
assistance.--A description of how loan guarantees under
section 184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1992, and other housing assistance provided by the Federal
Government for Indian tribes (including grants, loans, and
mortgage insurance) will be used to help in meeting the needs
for affordable housing in the jurisdiction of the recipient.
(5) Distribution of assistance.--A certification that the
recipient for the tribe will maintain a written record of--
(A) the geographical distribution (within the jurisdiction
of the recipient) of the use of grant amounts and how such
geographical distribution is consistent with the geographical
distribution of housing need (within such jurisdiction); and
(B) the distribution of the use of such assistance for
various categories of housing and how use for such various
categories is consistent with the priorities of housing need
(within the jurisdiction of the recipient).
(d) Participation of Tribally Designated Housing Entity.--A
plan under this section for an Indian tribe may be prepared
and submitted on behalf of the tribe by the tribally
designated housing entity for the tribe, but only if such
plan contains a certification by the recognized tribal
government of the grant beneficiary that such tribe has had
an opportunity to review the plan and has authorized the
submission of the plan by the housing entity.
(e) Coordination of Plans.--A plan under this section may
cover more than 1 Indian tribe, but only if the certification
requirements under subsection (d) are complied with by each
such grant beneficiary covered.
(f) Plans for Small Tribes.--
(1) Separate requirements.--The Secretary shall establish
requirements for submission of plans under this section and
the information to be included in such plans applicable to
small Indian tribes and small
[[Page H4715]]
tribally designated housing entities. Such requirements shall
waive any requirements under this section that the Secretary
determines are burdensome or unnecessary for such tribes and
housing entities.
(2) Small tribes.--The Secretary shall define small Indian
tribes and small tribally designated housing entities based
on the number of dwelling units assisted under this subtitle
by the tribe or housing entity or owned or operated pursuant
to a contract under the United States Housing Act of 1937
between the Secretary and the Indian housing authority for
the tribe.
(g) Regulations.--The requirements relating to the contents
of plans under this section shall be established by
regulation, pursuant to section 616.
SEC. 613. REVIEW OF PLANS.
(a) Review and Notice.--
(1) Review.--The Secretary shall conduct a limited review
of each local housing plan submitted to the Secretary to
ensure that the plan complies with the requirements of
section 612. 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 Indian tribe
for which a plan is submitted and any tribally designated
housing entity for the tribe whether the plan complies with
such requirements not later than 45 days after receiving the
plan. If the Secretary does not notify the Indian tribe, as
required under this subsection and subsection (b), the plan
shall be considered, for purposes of this title, to have been
determined to comply with the requirements under section 612
and the tribe shall be considered to have been notified of
compliance upon the expiration of such 45-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 612, 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
612.
(c) Standards for Determination of Noncompliance.--The
Secretary may determine that a plan does not comply with the
requirements under section 612 only if--
(1) the plan is not consistent with the national objectives
under section 621(a);
(2) the plan is incomplete in significant matters required
under such section;
(3) there is evidence available to the Secretary that
challenges, in a substantial manner, any information provided
in the plan;
(4) the Secretary determines that the plan violates the
purposes of this title because it fails to provide affordable
housing that will be viable on a long-term basis at a
reasonable cost; or
(5) the plan fails to adequately identify the capital
improvement needs for low-income housing owned or operated by
the Indian tribe that was developed pursuant to a contract
between the Secretary and an Indian housing authority
pursuant to the United States Housing Act of 1937.
(d) Treatment of Existing Plans.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this title, a plan shall be considered to have
been submitted for an Indian tribe if the appropriate Indian
housing 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 title) or under the comprehensive
improvement assistance program under such section 14, and the
Secretary has approved such plan, before January 1, 1997. The
Secretary shall provide specific procedures and requirements
for such tribes to amend such plans by submitting only such
additional information as is necessary to comply with the
requirements of section 612.
(e) Updates to Plan.--After a plan under section 612 has
been submitted for an Indian tribe for any fiscal year, the
tribe may comply with the provisions of such section for any
succeeding fiscal year (with respect to information included
for the 5-year period under section 612(b) or the 1-year
period under section 612(c)) by submitting only such
information regarding such changes as may be necessary to
update the plan previously submitted.
SEC. 614. TREATMENT OF PROGRAM INCOME AND LABOR STANDARDS.
(a) Program Income.--
(1) Authority to retain.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, a recipient may retain any program income
that is realized from any grant amounts under this title if--
(A) such income was realized after the initial disbursement
of the grant amounts received by the recipient; and
(B) the recipient has agreed that it will utilize the
program income for affordable housing activities in
accordance with the provisions of this title.
(2) Prohibition of reduction of grant.--The Secretary may
not reduce the grant amount for any Indian tribe based solely
on (1) whether the recipient for the tribe retains program
income under paragraph (1), or (2) the amount of any such
program income retained.
(3) Exclusion of amounts.--The Secretary may, by
regulation, exclude from consideration as program income any
amounts determined to be so small that compliance with the
requirements of this subsection would create an unreasonable
administrative burden on the recipient.
(b) Treatment of Labor Standards.--The use of amounts
provided under this title to finance (in whole or in part) a
contract for construction or rehabilitation work shall not
cause such contract to be subject to the requirements of the
Act of March 3, 1931 (40 U.S.C. 276a-276a-5; commonly known
as the Davis-Bacon Act) or to any other provision of law
requiring payment of wages in accordance with such Act.
SEC. 615. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
(a) In General.--In order to ensure that the policies of
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and other
provisions of law which further the purposes of such Act (as
specified in regulations issued by the Secretary) are most
effectively implemented in connection with the expenditure of
grant amounts provided under this title, and to ensure to the
public undiminished protection of the environment, the
Secretary, in lieu of the environmental protection procedures
otherwise applicable, may under regulations provide for the
release of amounts for particular projects to recipients of
assistance under this title who assume all of the
responsibilities for environmental review, decisionmaking,
and action pursuant to such Act, and such other provisions of
law as the regulations of the Secretary specify, that would
apply to the Secretary were the Secretary to undertake such
projects as Federal projects. The Secretary shall issue
regulations to carry out this section only after consultation
with the Council on Environmental Quality. The regulations
shall provide--
(1) for the monitoring of the environmental reviews
performed under this section;
(2) in the discretion of the Secretary, to facilitate
training for the performance of such reviews; and
(3) for the suspension or termination of the assumption of
responsibilities under this section.
The Secretary's duty under the preceding sentence shall not
be construed to limit or reduce any responsibility assumed by
a recipient of grant amounts with respect to any particular
release of funds.
(b) Procedure.--The Secretary shall approve the release of
funds subject to the procedures authorized by this section
only if, at least 15 days prior to such approval and prior to
any commitment of funds to such projects the recipient of
grant amounts has submitted to the Secretary a request for
such release accompanied by a certification which meets the
requirements of subsection (c). The Secretary's approval of
any such certification shall be deemed to satisfy the
Secretary's responsibilities under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 and such other provisions of law as the
regulations of the Secretary specify insofar as those
responsibilities relate to the releases of funds for projects
to be carried out pursuant thereto which are covered by such
certification.
(c) Certification.--A certification under the procedures
authorized by this section shall--
(1) be in a form acceptable to the Secretary,
(2) be executed by the chief executive officer or other
officer of the recipient of assistance under this title
qualified under regulations of the Secretary,
(3) specify that the recipient has fully carried out its
responsibilities as described under subsection (a), and
(4) specify that the certifying officer (A) consents to
assume the status of a responsible Federal official under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and each provision
of law specified in regulations issued by the Secretary
insofar as the provisions of such Act or such other
provisions of law apply pursuant to subsection (a), and (B)
is authorized and consents on behalf of the recipient of
assistance and such officer to accept the jurisdiction of the
Federal courts for the purpose of enforcement of the
certifying officer's responsibilities as such an official.
SEC. 616. REGULATIONS.
(a) Interim Requirements.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of the enactment of this title, the Secretary shall, by
notice issued in the Federal Register, establish any
requirements necessary to carry out this title in the manner
provided in section 617(b), which shall be effective only for
fiscal year 1997. The notice shall invite public comments
regarding such interim requirements and final regulations to
carry out this title and shall include general notice of
proposed rulemaking (for purposes of section 564(a) of title
5, United States Code) of the final regulations under
paragraph (2).
(b) Final Regulations.--
(1) Timing.--The Secretary shall issue final regulations
necessary to carry out this title not later than September 1,
1997, and such regulations shall take effect not later than
the effective date under section 617(a).
(2) Negotiated rulemaking.--Notwithstanding sections 563(a)
and 565(a) of title 5, United States Code, the final
regulations required under paragraph (1) shall be issued
according to a negotiated rulemaking procedure under
subchapter III of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code.
The Secretary shall establish a negotiated rulemaking
committee for development of any such proposed regulations,
which shall include representatives of Indian tribes.
SEC. 617. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b) and
as otherwise specifically
[[Page H4716]]
provided in this title, this title shall take effect on
October 1, 1997.
(b) Interim Applicability.--For fiscal year 1997, this
title shall apply to any Indian tribe that requests the
Secretary to apply this title to such tribe, subject to the
provisions of this subsection, but only if the Secretary
determines that the tribe has the capacity to carry out the
responsibilities under this title during such fiscal year.
For fiscal year 1997, this title shall apply to any such
tribe subject to the following limitations:
(1) Use of assistance amounts as block grant.--Amounts
shall not be made available pursuant to this title for grants
under this title for such fiscal year, but any amounts made
available for the tribe under the United States Housing Act
of 1937, title II or subtitle D of title IV of the Cranston-
Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, title IV of the
Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, or section 2 of
the HUD Demonstration Act of 1993 shall be considered grant
amounts under this title and shall be used subject to the
provisions of this title relating to such grant amounts.
(2) Local housing plan.--Notwithstanding section 613 of
this title, a local housing plan shall be considered to have
been submitted for the tribe for fiscal year 1997 for
purposes of this title only if--
(A) the appropriate Indian housing authority has submitted
to the Secretary a comprehensive plan under section 14(e) of
the United States Housing Act of 1937 or under the
comprehensive improvement assistance program under such
section 14;
(B) the Secretary has approved such plan before January 1,
1996; and
(C) the tribe complies with specific procedures and
requirements for amending such plan as the Secretary may
establish to carry out this subsection.
(c) Assistance Under Existing Program During Fiscal Year
1997.--Notwithstanding the repeal of any provision of law
under section 501(a) and with respect only to Indian tribes
not provided assistance pursuant to subsection (b), during
fiscal year 1997--
(1) the Secretary shall carry out programs to provide low-
income housing assistance on Indian reservations and other
Indian areas in accordance with the provisions of title II of
the United States Housing Act of 1937 and related provisions
of law, as in effect immediately before the enactment of this
Act;
(2) except to the extent otherwise provided in the
provisions of such title II (as so in effect), the provisions
of title I of such Act (as so in effect) and such related
provisions of law shall apply to low-income housing developed
or operated pursuant to a contract between the Secretary and
an Indian housing authority; and
(3) none of the provisions of title I, II, III, or IV, or
of any other law specifically modifying the public housing
program that is enacted after the date of the enactment of
this Act, shall apply to public housing operated pursuant to
a contract between the Secretary and an Indian housing
authority, unless the provision explicitly provides for such
applicability.
SEC. 618. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated for grants under
subtitle A $650,000,000, for each of fiscal years 1998, 1999,
2000, and 2001.
Subtitle B--Affordable Housing Activities
SEC. 621. NATIONAL OBJECTIVES AND ELIGIBLE FAMILIES.
(a) Primary Objective.--The national objectives of this
title are--
(1) to assist and promote affordable housing activities to
develop, maintain, and operate safe, clean, and healthy
affordable housing on Indian reservations and in other Indian
areas for occupancy by low-income Indian families;
(2) to ensure better access to private mortgage markets for
Indian tribes and their members and to promote self-
sufficiency of Indian tribes and their members;
(3) to coordinate activities to provide housing for Indian
tribes and their members with Federal, State, and local
activities to further economic and community development for
Indian tribes and their members;
(4) to plan for and integrate infrastructure resources for
Indian tribes with housing development for tribes; and
(5) to promote the development of private capital markets
in Indian country and to allow such markets to operate and
grow, thereby benefiting Indian communities.
(b) Eligible Families.--
(1) In General.--Except as provided under paragraph (2),
assistance under eligible housing activities under this title
shall be limited to low-income Indian families on Indian
reservations and other Indian areas.
(2) Exception to Low-Income Requirement.--A recipient may
provide assistance for model activities under section
622(a)(6) to families who are not low-income families, if the
Secretary approves the activities pursuant to such subsection
because there is a need for housing for such families that
cannot reasonably be met without such assistance. The
Secretary shall establish limits on the amount of assistance
that may be provided under this title for activities for
families who are not low-income families.
(3) Non-indian families.--A recipient may provide housing
or housing assistance provided through affordable housing
activities assisted with grant amounts under this title for a
non-Indian family on an Indian reservation or other Indian
area if the recipient determines that the presence of the
family on the Indian reservation or other Indian area is
essential to the well-being of Indian families and the need
for housing for the family cannot reasonably be met without
such assistance.
(4) Preference for indian families.--The local housing plan
for an Indian tribe may require preference, for housing or
housing assistance provided through affordable housing
activities assisted with grant amounts provided under this
title on behalf of such tribe, to be given (to the extent
practicable) to Indian families who are members of such
tribe, or to other Indian families. In any case in which the
applicable local housing plan for an Indian tribe provides
for preference under this subsection, the recipient for the
tribe shall ensure that housing activities that are assisted
with grant amounts under this title for such tribe are
subject to such preference.
(5) Exemption.--Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 shall not
apply to actions by Indian tribes under this subsection.
SEC. 622. ELIGIBLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTIVITIES.
Affordable housing activities under this subtitle are
activities, in accordance with the requirements of this
subtitle, to develop or to support affordable housing for
rental or homeownership, or to provide housing services with
respect to affordable housing, through the following
activities:
(1) Indian housing assistance.--The provision of
modernization or operating assistance for housing previously
developed or operated pursuant to a contract between the
Secretary and an Indian housing authority.
(2) Development.--The acquisition, new construction,
reconstruction, or moderate or substantial rehabilitation of
affordable housing, which may include real property
acquisition, site improvement, development of utilities and
utility services, conversion, demolition, financing,
administration and planning, and other related activities.
(3) Housing services.--The provision of housing-related
services for affordable housing, such as housing counseling
in connection with rental or homeownership assistance, energy
auditing, and other services related to assisting owners,
tenants, contractors, and other entities, participating or
seeking to participate in other housing activities assisted
pursuant to this section.
(4) Housing management services.--The provision of
management services for affordable housing, including
preparation of work specifications, loan processing,
inspections, tenant selection, management of tenant-based
rental assistance, and management of affordable housing
projects.
(5) Crime prevention and safety activities.--The provision
of safety, security, and law enforcement measures and
activities appropriate to protect residents of affordable
housing from crime.
(6) Model activities.--Housing activities under model
programs that are designed to carry out the purposes of this
title and are specifically approved by the Secretary as
appropriate for such purpose.
SEC. 623. REQUIRED AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTIVITIES.
(a) Maintenance of Operating Assistance for Indian
Housing.--Any recipient who owns or operates (or is
responsible for funding any entity that owns or operates)
housing developed or operated pursuant to a contract between
the Secretary and an Indian housing authority pursuant to the
United States Housing Act of 1937 shall, using amounts of any
grants received under this title, reserve and use for
operating assistance under section 622(1) such amounts as may
be necessary to provide for the continued maintenance and
efficient operation of such housing.
(b) Demolition and Disposition.--This title may not be
construed to prevent any recipient (or entity funded by a
recipient) from demolishing or disposing of Indian housing
referred to in such subsection. Notwithstanding section 114,
section 261 shall apply to the demolition or disposition of
Indian housing referred to in subsection (a).
SEC. 624. TYPES OF INVESTMENTS.
(a) In General.--Subject to section 623 and the local
housing plan for an Indian tribe, the recipient for such
tribe shall have--
(1) the discretion to use grant amounts for affordable
housing activities through equity investments, interest-
bearing loans or advances, noninterest-bearing loans or
advances, interest subsidies, leveraging of private
investments under subsection (b), or any other form of
assistance that the Secretary has determined to be consistent
with the purposes of this title; and
(2) the right to establish the terms of assistance.
(b) Leveraging Private Investment.--A recipient may
leverage private investments in affordable housing activities
by pledging existing or future grant amounts to assure the
repayment of notes and other obligations of the recipient
issued for purposes of carrying out affordable housing
activities.
SEC. 625. LOW-INCOME REQUIREMENT AND INCOME TARGETING.
Housing shall qualify as affordable housing for purposes of
this title only if--
(1) each dwelling unit in the housing--
(A) in the case of rental housing, is made available for
occupancy only by a family that is a low-income family at the
time of their initial occupancy of such unit; and
(B) in the case of housing for homeownership, is made
available for purchase only by a family that is a low-income
family at the time of purchase; and
(2) except for housing assisted under section 202 of the
United States Housing Act of
[[Page H4717]]
1937 (as in effect before the enactment of this Act), each
dwelling unit in the housing will remain affordable,
according to binding commitments satisfactory to the
Secretary, for the remaining useful life of the property (as
determined by the Secretary) without regard to the term of
the mortgage or to transfer of ownership, or for such other
period that the Secretary determines is the longest feasible
period of time consistent with sound economics and the
purposes of this title, except upon a foreclosure by a lender
(or upon other transfer in lieu of foreclosure) if such
action (A) recognizes any contractual or legal rights of
public agencies, nonprofit sponsors, or others to take
actions that would avoid termination of low-income
affordability in the case of foreclosure or transfer in lieu
of foreclosure, and (B) is not for the purpose of avoiding
low-income affordability restrictions, as determined by the
Secretary.
SEC. 626. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH SUBSIDY LAYERING
REQUIREMENTS.
With respect to housing assisted with grant amounts
provided under this title, the requirements of section 102(d)
of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act
of 1989 shall be considered to be satisfied upon
certification by the recipient of the assistance to the
Secretary that the combination of Federal assistance provided
to any housing project is not any more than is necessary to
provide affordable housing.
SEC. 627. LEASE REQUIREMENTS AND TENANT SELECTION.
(a) Leases.--Except to the extent otherwise provided by or
inconsistent with tribal law, in renting dwelling units in
affordable housing assisted with grant amounts provided under
this title, the owner or manager of the housing shall utilize
leases that--
(1) do not contain unreasonable terms and conditions;
(2) require the owner or manager to maintain the housing in
compliance with applicable housing codes and quality
standards;
(3) require the owner or manager 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 employees of
the owner or manager is threatened; and
(C) the period of time provided under the applicable law of
the jurisdiction, in any other case;
(4) require that the owner or manager may not terminate the
tenancy except for violation of the terms or conditions of
the lease, violation of applicable Federal, tribal, State, or
local law, or for other good cause; and
(5) provide that the owner or manager may terminate the
tenancy of a resident for any activity, engaged in by the
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 owner or 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).
(b) Tenant Selection.--The owner or manager of affordable
rental housing assisted under with grant amounts provided
under this title shall adopt and utilize written tenant
selection policies and criteria that--
(1) are consistent with the purpose of providing housing
for low-income families;
(2) are reasonably related to program eligibility and the
applicant's ability to perform the obligations of the lease;
and
(3) provide for (A) the selection of tenants from a written
waiting list in accordance with the policies and goals set
forth in the local housing plan for the tribe that is the
grant beneficiary of such grant amounts, and (B) the prompt
notification in writing of any rejected applicant of the
grounds for any rejection.
SEC. 628. REPAYMENT.
If a recipient uses grant amounts to provide affordable
housing under activities under this subtitle and, at any time
during the useful life of the housing the housing does not
comply with the requirement under section 625(a)(2), the
Secretary shall reduce future grant payments on behalf of the
grant beneficiary by an amount equal to the grant amounts
used for such housing (under the authority under section
651(a)(2)) or require repayment to the Secretary of an amount
equal to such grant amounts.
SEC. 629. CONTINUED USE OF AMOUNTS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
Any funds for programs for low-income housing under the
United States Housing Act of 1937 that, on the date of the
applicability of this title to an Indian tribe, are owned by,
or in the possession or under the control of, the Indian
housing authority for the tribe, including all reserves not
otherwise obligated, shall be considered assistance under
this title and subject to the provisions of this title
relating to use of such assistance.
Subtitle C--Allocation of Grant Amounts
SEC. 641. ANNUAL ALLOCATION.
For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall allocate any
amounts made available for assistance under this title for
the fiscal year, in accordance with the formula established
pursuant to section 642, among Indian tribes that comply with
the requirements under this title for a grant under this
title.
SEC. 642. ALLOCATION FORMULA.
The Secretary shall, by regulations issued in the manner
provided under section 616, establish a formula to provide
for allocating amounts available for a fiscal year for block
grants under this title among Indian tribes. The formula
shall be based on factors that reflect the need of the Indian
tribes and the Indian areas of the tribes for assistance for
affordable housing activities, including the following
factors:
(1) The number of low-income housing dwelling units owned
or operated at the time pursuant to a contract between an
Indian housing authority for the tribe and the Secretary.
(2) The extent of poverty and economic distress within
Indian areas of the tribe.
(3) Other objectively measurable conditions as the
Secretary may specify.
The regulations establishing the formula shall be issued
not later than the expiration of the 12-month period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this title.
Subtitle D--Compliance, Audits, and Reports
SEC. 651. REMEDIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.
(a) Actions by Secretary Affecting Grant Amounts.--Except
as provided in subsection (b), if the Secretary finds after
reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing that a
recipient of assistance under this title has failed to comply
substantially with any provision of this title, the Secretary
shall--
(1) terminate payments under this title to the recipient;
(2) reduce payments under this title to the recipient by an
amount equal to the amount of such payments which were not
expended in accordance with this title;
(3) limit the availability of payments under this title to
programs, projects, or activities not affected by such
failure to comply; or
(4) in the case of noncompliance described in section
652(b), provide a replacement tribally designated housing
entity for the recipient, under section 652.
If the Secretary takes an action under paragraph (1), (2), or
(3), the Secretary shall continue such action until the
Secretary determines that the failure to comply has ceased.
(b) Noncompliance Because of Technical Incapacity.--If the
Secretary makes a finding under subsection (a), but
determines that the failure to comply substantially with the
provisions of this title--
(1) is not a pattern or practice of activities constituting
willful noncompliance, and
(2) is a result of the limited capability or capacity of
the recipient,
the Secretary may provide technical assistance for the
recipient (directly or indirectly) that is designed to
increase the capability and capacity of the recipient to
administer assistance provided under this title in compliance
with the requirements under this title.
(c) Referral for Civil Action.--
(1) Authority.--In lieu of, or in addition to, any action
authorized by subsection (a), the Secretary may, if the
Secretary has reason to believe that a recipient has failed
to comply substantially with any provision of this title,
refer the matter to the Attorney General of the United States
with a recommendation that an appropriate civil action be
instituted.
(2) Civil action.--Upon such a referral, the Attorney
General may bring a civil action in any United States
district court having venue thereof for such relief as may be
appropriate, including an action to recover the amount of the
assistance furnished under this title which was not expended
in accordance with it, or for mandatory or injunctive relief.
(d) Review.--
(1) In general.--Any recipient who receives notice under
subsection (a) of the termination, reduction, or limitation
of payments under this title may, within 60 days after
receiving such notice, file with the United States Court of
Appeals for the circuit in which such State is located, or in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia, a petition for review of the Secretary's action.
The petitioner shall forthwith transmit copies of the
petition to the Secretary and the Attorney General of the
United States, who shall represent the Secretary in the
litigation.
(2) Procedure.--The Secretary shall file in the court
record of the proceeding on which the Secretary based the
action, as provided in section 2112 of title 28, United
States Code. No objection to the action of the Secretary
shall be considered by the court unless such objection has
been urged before the Secretary.
(3) Disposition.--The court shall have jurisdiction to
affirm or modify the action of the Secretary or to set it
aside in whole or in part. The findings of fact by the
Secretary, if supported by substantial evidence on the record
considered as a whole, shall be conclusive. The court may
order additional evidence to be taken by the Secretary, and
to be made part of the record. The Secretary may modify the
Secretary's findings of fact, or make new findings, by reason
of the new evidence so taken and filed with the court, and
the Secretary shall also file such modified or new findings,
which findings with respect to questions of fact shall be
conclusive if supported by substantial evidence on the record
considered as a whole, and shall also file the Secretary's
recommendation, if any, for the modification or setting aside
of the Secretary's original action.
[[Page H4718]]
(4) Finality.--Upon the filing of the record with the
court, the jurisdiction of the court shall be exclusive and
its judgment shall be final, except that such judgment shall
be subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United
States upon writ of certiorari or certification as provided
in section 1254 of title 28, United State Code.
SEC. 652. REPLACEMENT OF RECIPIENT.
(a) Authority.--As a condition of the Secretary making a
grant under this title on behalf of an Indian tribe, the
tribe shall agree that, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the Secretary may, only in the circumstances set
forth in subsection (b), require that a replacement tribally
designated housing entity serve as the recipient for the
tribe, in accordance with subsection (c).
(b) Conditions of Removal.--The Secretary may require such
replacement tribally designated housing entity for a tribe
only upon a determination by the Secretary on the record
after opportunity for a hearing that the recipient for the
tribe has engaged in a pattern or practice of activities that
constitutes substantial or willful noncompliance with the
requirements under this title.
(c) Choice and Term of Replacement.--If the Secretary
requires that a replacement tribally designated housing
entity serve as the recipient for a tribe (or tribes)--
(1) the replacement entity shall be an entity mutually
agreed upon by the Secretary and the tribe (or tribes) for
which the recipient was authorized to act, except that if no
such entity is agreed upon before the expiration of the 60-
day period beginning upon the date that the Secretary makes
the determination under subsection (b), the Secretary shall
act as the replacement entity until agreement is reached upon
a replacement entity; and
(2) the replacement entity (or the Secretary, as provided
in paragraph (1)) shall act as the tribally designated
housing entity for the tribe (or tribes) for a period that
expires upon--
(A) a date certain, which shall be specified by the
Secretary upon making the determination under subsection (b);
or
(B) the occurrence of specific conditions, which conditions
shall be specified in written notice provided by the
Secretary to the tribe upon making the determination under
subsection (b).
SEC. 653. MONITORING OF COMPLIANCE.
(a) Enforceable Agreements.--Each recipient, through
binding contractual agreements with owners and otherwise,
shall ensure long-term compliance with the provisions of this
title. Such measures shall provide for (1) enforcement of the
provisions of this title by the grant beneficiary or by
recipients and other intended beneficiaries, and (2) remedies
for the breach of such provisions.
(b) Periodic Monitoring.--Not less frequently than
annually, each recipient shall review the activities
conducted and housing assisted under this title to assess
compliance with the requirements of this title. Such review
shall include on-site inspection of housing to determine
compliance with applicable requirements. The results of each
review shall be included in the performance report of the
recipient submitted to the Secretary under section 654 and
made available to the public.
SEC. 654. PERFORMANCE REPORTS.
(a) Requirement.--For each fiscal year, each recipient
shall--
(1) review the progress it has made during such fiscal year
in carrying out the local housing plan (or plans) for the
Indian tribes for which it administers grant amounts; and
(2) submit a report to the Secretary (in a form acceptable
to the Secretary) describing the conclusions of the review.
(b) Content.--Each report under this section for a fiscal
year shall--
(1) describe the use of grant amounts provided to the
recipient for such fiscal year;
(2) assess the relationship of such use to the goals
identified in the local housing plan of the grant
beneficiary;
(3) indicate the recipient's programmatic accomplishments;
and
(4) describe how the recipient would change its programs as
a result of its experiences.
(c) Submission.--The Secretary shall establish dates for
submission of reports under this section, and review such
reports and make such recommendations as the Secretary
considers appropriate to carry out the purposes of this
title.
(d) Public Availability.--A recipient preparing a report
under this section shall make the report publicly available
to the citizens in the recipient's jurisdiction in sufficient
time to permit such citizens to comment on such report prior
to its submission to the Secretary, and in such manner and at
such times as the recipient may determine. The report shall
include a summary of any comments received by the grant
beneficiary or recipient from citizens in its jurisdiction
regarding its program.
SEC. 655. REVIEW AND AUDIT BY SECRETARY.
(a) Annual Review.--The Secretary shall, at least on an
annual basis, make such reviews and audits as may be
necessary or appropriate to determine--
(1) whether the recipient has carried out its eligible
activities in a timely manner, has carried out its eligible
activities and certifications in accordance with the
requirements and the primary objectives of this title and
with other applicable laws, and has a continuing capacity to
carry out those activities in a timely manner;
(2) whether the recipient has complied with the local
housing plan of the grant beneficiary; and
(3) whether the performance reports under section 654 of
the recipient are accurate.
Reviews under this section shall include, insofar as
practicable, on-site visits by employees of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
(b) Report by Secretary.--The Secretary shall submit a
written report to the Congress regarding each review under
subsection (a). The Secretary shall give a recipient not less
than 30 days to review and comment on a report under this
subsection. After taking into consideration the comments of
the recipient, the Secretary may revise the report and shall
make the recipient's comments and the report, with any
revisions, readily available to the public not later than 30
days after receipt of the recipient's comments.
(c) Effect of Reviews.--The Secretary may make appropriate
adjustments in the amount of the annual grants under this
title in accordance with the Secretary's findings pursuant to
reviews and audits under this section. The Secretary may
adjust, reduce, or withdraw grant amounts, or take other
action as appropriate in accordance with the Secretary's
reviews and audits under this section, except that grant
amounts already expended on affordable housing activities may
not be recaptured or deducted from future assistance provided
on behalf of an Indian tribe.
SEC. 656. GAO AUDITS.
To the extent that the financial transactions of Indian
tribes and recipients of grant amounts under this title
relate to amounts provided under this title, such
transactions may be audited 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 to all books,
accounts, records, reports, files, and other papers, things,
or property belonging to or in use by such tribes and
recipients pertaining to such financial transactions and
necessary to facilitate the audit.
SEC. 657. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the
conclusion of each fiscal year in which assistance under this
title is made available, the Secretary shall submit to the
Congress a report that contains--
(1) a description of the progress made in accomplishing the
objectives of this title; and
(2) a summary of the use of such funds during the preceding
fiscal year.
(b) Related Reports.--The Secretary may require recipients
of grant amounts under this title to submit to the Secretary
such reports and other information as may be necessary in
order for the Secretary to make the report required by
subsection (a).
Subtitle E--Termination of Assistance for Indian Tribes under
Incorporated Programs
SEC. 661. TERMINATION OF INDIAN PUBLIC HOUSING ASSISTANCE
UNDER UNITED STATES HOUSING ACT OF 1937.
(a) In General.--After September 30, 1997, financial
assistance may not be provided under the United States
Housing Act of 1937 or pursuant to any commitment entered
into under such Act, for Indian housing developed or operated
pursuant to a contract between the Secretary and an Indian
housing authority, unless such assistance is provided from
amounts made available for fiscal year 1997 and pursuant to a
commitment entered into before September 30, 1997.
(b) Termination of Restrictions on Use of Indian Housing.--
Except as provided in section 623(b) of this title, any
housing developed or operated pursuant to a contract between
the Secretary and an Indian housing authority pursuant to the
United States Housing Act of 1937 shall not be subject to any
provision of such Act or any annual contributions contract or
other agreement pursuant to such Act, but shall be considered
and maintained as affordable housing for purposes of this
title.
SEC. 662. TERMINATION OF NEW COMMITMENTS FOR RENTAL
ASSISTANCE.
After September 30, 1997, financial assistance for rental
housing assistance under the United States Housing Act of
1937 may not be provided to any Indian housing authority or
tribally designated housing entity, unless such assistance is
provided pursuant to a contract for such assistance entered
into by the Secretary and the Indian housing authority before
such date.
SEC. 663. TERMINATION OF YOUTHBUILD PROGRAM ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--Subtitle D of title IV of the Cranston-
Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12899 et
seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 460 as section 461; and
(2) by inserting after section 459 the following new
section:
``SEC. 460. INELIGIBILITY OF INDIAN TRIBES.
``Indian tribes, Indian housing authorities, and other
agencies primarily serving Indians or Indian areas shall not
be eligible applicants for amounts made available for
assistance under this subtitle for fiscal year 1997 and
fiscal years thereafter.''.
(b) Effective Date and Applicability.--The amendments under
subsection (a) shall be made on October 1, 1997, and shall
apply with respect to amounts made available for assistance
under subtitle D of title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act for fiscal year 1998 and
fiscal years thereafter.
[[Page H4719]]
SEC. 664. TERMINATION OF HOME PROGRAM ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--Title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12721 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 217(a)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``reserving amounts under
paragraph (2) for Indian tribes and after''; and
(B) by striking paragraph (2); and
(2) in section 288--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``, Indian tribes,'';
(B) in subsection (b), by striking ``, Indian tribe,''; and
(C) in subsection (c)(4), by striking ``, Indian tribe,''.
(b) Effective Date and Applicability.--The amendments under
subsection (a) shall be made on October 1, 1997, and shall
apply with respect to amounts made available for assistance
under title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal years thereafter.
SEC. 665. TERMINATION OF HOUSING ASSISTANCE FOR THE HOMELESS.
(a) McKinney Act Programs.--Title IV of the Stewart B.
McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11361 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) in section 411, by striking paragraph (10);
(2) in section 412, by striking ``, and for Indian
tribes,'';
(3) in section 413--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) by striking ``, and to Indian tribes,''; and
(ii) by striking ``, or for Indian tribes'' each place it
appears;
(B) in subsection (c), by striking ``or Indian tribe''; and
(C) in subsection (d)(3)--
(i) by striking ``, or Indian tribe'' each place it
appears; and
(ii) by striking ``, or other Indian tribes,'';
(4) in section 414(a)--
(A) by striking `or Indian tribe'' each place it appears;
and
(B) by striking ``, local government,'' each place it
appears and inserting ``or local government'';
(5) in section 415(c)(4), by striking ``Indian tribes,'';
(6) in section 416(b), by striking ``Indian tribe,'';
(7) in section 422--
(A) in by striking ``Indian tribe,''; and
(B) by striking paragraph (3);
(8) in section 441--
(A) by striking subsection (g);
(B) in subsection (h), by striking ``or Indian housing
authority''; and
(C) in subsection (j)(1), by striking ``, Indian housing
authority'';
(9) in section 462--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``, Indian tribe,''; and
(B) by striking paragraph (4); and
(10) in section 491(e), by striking ``, Indian tribes (as
such term is defined in section 102(a) of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974),''.
(b) Innovative Homeless Demonstration.--Section 2(b) of the
HUD Demonstration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 11301 note) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking `` `unit of general local
government', and `Indian tribe' '' and inserting ``and `unit
of general local government' ''; and
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``unit of general local
government (including units in rural areas), or Indian
tribe'' and inserting ``or unit of general local
government''.
(c) Effective Date and Applicability.--The amendments under
subsections (a) and (b) shall be made on October 1, 1997, and
shall apply with respect to amounts made available for
assistance under title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless
Assistance Act and section 2 of the HUD Demonstration Act of
1993, respectively, for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal years
thereafter.
SEC. 666. SAVINGS PROVISION.
Except as provided in sections 661 and 662, this title may
not be construed to affect the validity of any right, duty,
or obligation of the United States or other person arising
under or pursuant to any commitment or agreement lawfully
entered into before October 1, 1997, under the United States
Housing Act of 1937, subtitle D of title IV of the Cranston-
Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, title II of the
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, title IV
of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, or
section 2 of the HUD Demonstration Act of 1993.
SEC. 667. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Sections 661, 662, and 666 shall take effect on the date of
the enactment of this title.
Subtitle F--Loan Guarantees for Affordable Housing Activities
SEC. 671. AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Authority.--To such extent or in such amounts as
provided in appropriation Acts, the Secretary may, subject to
the limitations of this subtitle and upon such terms and
conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, guarantee and make
commitments to guarantee, the notes or other obligations
issued by Indian tribes or tribally designated housing
entities, for the purposes of financing affordable housing
activities described in section 622.
(b) Lack of Financing Elsewhere.--A guarantee under this
subtitle may be used to assist an Indian tribe or housing
entity in obtaining financing only if the Indian tribe or
housing entity has made efforts to obtain such financing
without the use of such guarantee and cannot complete such
financing consistent with the timely execution of the program
plans without such guarantee.
(c) Terms of Loans.--Notes or other obligations guaranteed
pursuant to this subtitle shall be in such form and
denominations, have such maturities, and be subject to such
conditions as may be prescribed by regulations issued by the
Secretary. The Secretary may not deny a guarantee under this
subtitle on the basis of the proposed repayment period for
the note or other obligation, unless the period is more than
20 years or the Secretary determines that the period causes
the guarantee to constitute an unacceptable financial risk.
(d) Limitation on Outstanding Guarantees.--No guarantee or
commitment to guarantee shall be made with respect to any
note or other obligation if the issuer's total outstanding
notes or obligations guaranteed under this subtitle
(excluding any amount defeased under the contract entered
into under section 672(a)(1)) would thereby exceed an amount
equal to 5 times the amount of the grant approval for the
issuer pursuant to title III.
(e) Prohibition of Purchase by FFB.--Notes or other
obligations guaranteed under this subtitle may not be
purchased by the Federal Financing Bank.
(f) Prohibition of Guarantee Fees.--No fee or charge may be
imposed by the Secretary or any other Federal agency on or
with respect to a guarantee made by the Secretary under this
subtitle.
SEC. 672. SECURITY AND REPAYMENT.
(a) Requirements on Issuer.--To assure the repayment of
notes or other obligations and charges incurred under this
subtitle and as a condition for receiving such guarantees,
the Secretary shall require the Indian tribe or housing
entity issuing such notes or obligations to--
(1) enter into a contract, in a form acceptable to the
Secretary, for repayment of notes or other obligations
guaranteed under this subtitle;
(2) pledge any grant for which the issuer may become
eligible under this title;
(3) demonstrate that the extent of such issuance and
guarantee under this title is within the financial capacity
of the tribe and is not likely to impairment the ability to
use of grant amounts under subtitle A, taking into
consideration the requirements under section 623(a); and
(4) furnish, at the discretion of the Secretary, such other
security as may be deemed appropriate by the Secretary in
making such guarantees, including increments in local tax
receipts generated by the activities assisted under this
title or dispositions proceeds from the sale of land or
rehabilitated property.
(b) Repayment From Grant Amounts.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this title--
(1) the Secretary may apply grants pledged pursuant to
subsection (a)(2) to any repayments due the United States as
a result of such guarantees; and
(2) grants allocated under this title for an Indian tribe
or housing entity (including program income derived
therefrom) may be used to pay principal and interest due
(including such servicing, underwriting, and other costs as
may be specified in regulations issued by the Secretary) on
notes or other obligations guaranteed pursuant to this
subtitle.
(c) Full Faith and Credit.--The full faith and credit of
the United States is pledged to the payment of all guarantees
made under this subtitle. Any such guarantee made by the
Secretary shall be conclusive evidence of the eligibility of
the obligations for such guarantee with respect to principal
and interest, and the validity of any such guarantee so made
shall be incontestable in the hands of a holder of the
guaranteed obligations.
SEC. 673. PAYMENT OF INTEREST.
The Secretary may make, and contract to make, grants, in
such amounts as may be approved in appropriations Acts, to or
on behalf of an Indian tribe or housing entity issuing notes
or other obligations guaranteed under this subtitle, to cover
not to exceed 30 percent of the net interest cost (including
such servicing, underwriting, or other costs as may be
specified in regulations of the Secretary) to the borrowing
entity or agency of such obligations. The Secretary may also,
to the extent approved in appropriation Acts, assist the
issuer of a note or other obligation guaranteed under this
subtitle in the payment of all or a portion of the principal
and interest amount due under the note or other obligation,
if the Secretary determines that the issuer is unable to pay
the amount because of circumstances of extreme hardship
beyond the control of the issuer.
SEC. 674. TREASURY BORROWING.
The Secretary may issue obligations to the Secretary of the
Treasury in an amount outstanding at any one time sufficient
to enable the Secretary to carry out the obligations of the
Secretary under guarantees authorized by this subtitle. The
obligations issued under this section shall have such
maturities and bear such rate or rates of interest as shall
be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary
of the Treasury is authorized and directed to purchase any
obligations of the Secretary issued under this section, and
for such purposes may use as a public debt transaction the
proceeds from the sale of any securities issued under chapter
31
[[Page H4720]]
of title 31, United States Code, and the purposes for which
such securities may be issued under such chapter are extended
to include the purchases of the Secretary's obligations
hereunder.
SEC. 675. TRAINING AND INFORMATION.
The Secretary, in cooperation with eligible public
entities, shall carry out training and information activities
with respect to the guarantee program under this subtitle.
SEC. 676. LIMITATIONS ON AMOUNT OF GUARANTEES.
(a) Aggregate Fiscal Year Limitation.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law and subject only to the absence of
qualified applicants or proposed activities and to the
authority provided in this subtitle, to the extent approved
or provided in appropriation Acts, the Secretary shall enter
into commitments to guarantee notes and obligations under
this subtitle with an aggregate principal amount of
$400,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,
and 2001.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations for Credit Subsidy.--
There is authorized to be appropriated to cover the costs (as
such term is defined in section 502 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974) of guarantees under this subtitle,
$40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,
and 2001.
(c) Aggregate Outstanding Limitation.--The total amount of
outstanding obligations guaranteed on a cumulative basis by
the Secretary pursuant to this subtitle shall not at any time
exceed $2,000,000,000 or such higher amount as may be
authorized to be appropriated for this subtitle for any
fiscal year.
(d) Fiscal Year Limitations on Tribes.--The Secretary shall
monitor the use of guarantees under this subtitle by Indian
tribes. If the Secretary finds that 50 percent of the
aggregate guarantee authority under subsection (c) has been
committed, the Secretary may--
(1) impose limitations on the amount of guarantees any one
Indian tribe may receive in any fiscal year of $50,000,000;
or
(2) request the enactment of legislation increasing the
aggregate limitation on guarantees under this subtitle.
SEC. 677. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This subtitle shall take effect upon the enactment of this
title.
Subtitle G--Other Housing Assistance for Native Americans
SEC. 681. LOAN GUARANTEES FOR INDIAN HOUSING.
(a) Definition of Eligible Borrowers to Include Indian
Tribes.--Section 184 of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 1515z-13a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``and Indian housing authorities'' and
inserting ``, Indian housing authorities, and Indian
tribes,''; and
(B) by striking ``or Indian housing authority'' and
inserting ``, Indian housing authority, or Indian tribe'';
and
(2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``or Indian housing
authorities'' and inserting ``, Indian housing authorities,
or Indian tribes''.
(b) Need for Loan Guarantee.--Section 184(a) of the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1992 is amended by striking
``trust land'' and inserting ``lands or as a result of a lack
of access to private financial markets''.
(c) LHP Requirement.--Section 184(b)(2) of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1992 is amended by inserting
before the period at the end the following: ``that is under
the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe for which a local housing
plan has been submitted and approved pursuant to sections 612
and 613 of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act of 1996 that provides for the use of loan
guarantees under this section to provide affordable
homeownership housing in such areas''.
(d) Lender Option to Obtain Payment Upon Default Without
Foreclosure.--Section 184(h) of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1992 is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A)--
(A) in the first sentence of clause (i), by striking ``in a
court of competent jurisdiction''; and
(B) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following new
clause:
``(ii) No foreclosure.--Without seeking foreclosure (or in
any case in which a foreclosure proceeding initiated under
clause (i) continues for a period in excess of 1 year), the
holder of the guarantee may submit to the Secretary a request
to assign the obligation and security interest to the
Secretary in return for payment of the claim under the
guarantee. The Secretary may accept assignment of the loan if
the Secretary determines that the assignment is in the best
interests of the United States. Upon assignment, the
Secretary shall pay to the holder of the guarantee the pro
rata portion of the amount guaranteed (as determined under
subsection (e)). The Secretary shall be subrogated to the
rights of the holder of the guarantee and the holder shall
assign the obligation and security to the Secretary.'';
(2) by striking paragraph (2); and
(3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
(e) Limitation of Mortgagee Authority.--Section 184(h)(2)
of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, as so
redesignated by subsection (e)(3) of this section, is
amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``tribal allotted or
trust land,'' and inserting ``restricted Indian land, the
mortgagee or''; and
(B) in the second sentence, by striking ``Secretary'' each
place it appears, and inserting ``mortgagee or the
Secretary''.
(f) Limitation on Outstanding Aggregate Principal Amount.--
Section 184(i)(5)(C) of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1992 is amended by striking ``1993'' and all that
follows through ``such year'' and inserting ``1997, 1998,
1999, 2000, and 2001 with an aggregate outstanding principal
amount note exceeding $400,000,000 for each such fiscal
year''.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations for Guarantee Fund.--
Section 184(i)(7) of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1992 is amended by striking ``such sums'' and all that
follows through ``1994'' and inserting ``$30,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001''.
(h) Definitions.--Section 184(k) of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1992 is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4), by inserting after ``authority'' the
following: ``or Indian tribe'';
(2) in paragraph (5)--
(A) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
following new subparagraph:
``(A) is authorized to engage in or assist in the
development or operation of--
``(i) low-income housing for Indians; or
``(ii) housing subject to the provisions of this section;
and''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``The term includes tribally designated housing entities
under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act of 1996.''; and
(3) by striking paragraph (8) and inserting the following
new paragraph:
``(8) The term `tribe' or `Indian tribe' means any Indian
tribe, band, notation, or other organized group or community
of Indians, including any Alaska Native village or regional
or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant
to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, which is
recognized as eligible for the special programs and services
provided by the United States to Indians because of their
status as Indians pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act of 1975.
SEC. 682. 50-YEAR LEASEHOLD INTEREST IN TRUST OR RESTRICTED
LANDS FOR HOUSING PURPOSES.
(a) Authority to Lease.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, any restricted Indian lands, whether
tribally or individually owned, may be leased by the Indian
owners, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior,
for residential purposes.
(b) Term.--Each lease pursuant to subsection (a) shall be
for a term not exceeding 50 years.
(c) Other Conditions.--Each lease pursuant to subsection
(a) and each renewal of such a lease shall be made under such
terms and regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary
of the Interior.
(d) Rule of Construction.--This section may not be
construed to repeal, limit, or affect any authority to lease
any restricted Indian lands that--
(1) is conferred by or pursuant to any other provision of
law; or
(2) provides for leases for any period exceeding 50 years.
SEC. 683. TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
There is authorized to be appropriated for assistance for
the a national organization representing Native American
housing interests for providing training and technical
assistance to Indian housing authorities and tribally
designated housing entities $2,000,000, for each of fiscal
years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.
SEC. 684. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle
shall take effect upon the enactment of this title.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the committee of Wednesday,
May 8, 1996, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] will be
recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for
10 minutes.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The gentleman will state it.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have a perfecting amendment to
the amendment of the gentleman from Arizona. When would be the
appropriate time to offer that amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to recognize the gentleman from
Arizona for his amendment, and at that point, under the unanimous-
consent agreement of yesterday, the gentleman from Arizona has 10
minutes in support of his amendment that will be allocated in support
and 10 minutes will be allocated in opposition.
At any time while the amendment of the gentleman from Arizona is
pending, the gentleman from Alaska may offer a perfecting amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the Chair.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I claim that time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] will be
recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
[[Page H4721]]
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes and 45 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 2406 which
will provide the tools for native American tribes to meet their unique
housing needs.
My amendment consists of the text of H.R. 3219, the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996. This legislation
was introduced by my colleague from New York, the chairman of the
Housing Subcommittee. I cosponsor it along with Mr. Bereuter of
Nebraska, and Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Months of consultation with
tribes from across the country produced the legislation before us
today.
The need for better housing on Indian reservations is clear. As
Albert Hale, president of the Navajo Nation, testified before the
Housing Subcommittee, over 56 percent of the Navajo people live in
poverty. It is not uncommon to have Navajo families of as many as 12
people living in a two-room house. The Navajo tribal government has
estimated that over 13,000 new homes are needed to alleviate severe
overcrowding. But tribes, such as the Navajo Nation, need not just the
resources, but the flexibility, to address the housing problems they
face.
A more effective system of Indian housing should be based on several
important principles. First, public housing programs modeled for urban
America often do not work in Indian country. Second the Federal role in
providing housing to native Americans should recognize the special
trust relationship between the Federal Government and tribal
governments. Finally, tribes and Indian housing authorities should have
the flexibility and responsibility to address the housing needs in
their communities.
The amendment I am offering reflects these principles. H.R. 3219
separates Indian housing from public housing, a move which tribes have
been advocating for years. It creates a block grant which will go
directly to tribes, not through the States. I believe this is an
important part of recognizing the government-to-government relationship
between tribes and the Federal Government. This block grant will also
increase local control and allow much greater flexibility for each
tribe to address its own housing needs, including building new homes,
renovating existing homes, or increasing community development.
Finally, H.R. 3219 takes steps to promote and facilitate homeownership
and lending on reservations.
The National Congress of America Indians, which has 206 member
tribes, supports these principles as articulate in H.R. 3219. The
National American Indian Housing Council, which represents 187 Indian
housing authorities, also supports the principles in this bill.
I know that there are still issues that various parties want to see
addressed in this legislation, and I hope that the process will
continue to be as open and inclusive a process as Chairman Lazio has
promoted so far. For instance, one of the tribes in my congressional
district, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian community, is a self-
governance tribe. Although they believe that this bill provides an
important opportunity to move toward self-sufficiency in housing, they
would like to see an option for self-governance tribes to deliver
housing services through a self-governance contract. I know that, as we
move forward to conference, Chairman Lazio will continue to make every
effort to accommodate the needs and concerns of tribes. Likewise, we
have reached a compromise on the Davis-Bacon issue, which will be
addressed in an amendment offered momentarily by my colleagues from
Alaska and Minnesota.
If this amendment is approved and H.R. 3219 is attached to H.R. 2406,
none of the provisions of H.R. 2406 will apply to tribes and Indian
housing will be established as separate from public housing, as I have
said. However, it is extremely important to move the two bills
concurrently. As my colleagues know, H.R. 2406 repeals the 1937 Housing
Act. Without passage of H.R. 3219, native Americans could be left
without a Federal housing program which would be devastating to tribes
across the country.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which will improve
housing conditions for native Americans across the country.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment in its present
form. Mr. Chairman, I have concerns about certainly the rush to act on
this amendment. It makes sweeping changes to the native American
housing policy. There has only been one hearing on this and five
witnesses. In fact, the administration, who favors this amendment, did
not testify on it, nor have they submitted testimony.
Mr. Chairman, I, myself, have long been an advocate of assisted
housing in Indian country and have worked with many Members. Very
often, Mr. Chairman, it is a very far limited market. It requires
infrastructure changes. The pattern of ownership is complicated, as my
colleagues on the Committee on Resources with whom I work are
knowledgeable of the problem and challenge.
We did not have a markup on this bill. It does not have some of the
needed policy changes that I think are necessary, such as the issue of
State Housing Finance Agency role in terms of native American housing.
Well crafted proposals and recommendations exist in that vein. Also
this measure could include urban Indian housing as one of the outcomes,
which is not in this amendment. Most native Americans in fact live in
urban settings today.
So, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about these shortcomings about some
of the labor provisions within this amendment. I also am concerned that
there are other amendments that may be offered without any warning to
most the membership on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska [Mr.
Young], who is planning on offering an amendment at this time.
amendment offered by mr. young of alaska to amendment no. 9 offered by
mr. hayworth
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Alaska to Amendment No. 9
offered by Mr. Hayworth: Page 29 of the amendment, strike
line 22, and all that follows through page 30, line 4, and
insert the following new subsection:
(b)(1) In general.--Any contract for the construction of
affordable housing with 12 or more units assisted with grant
amounts made available under this Act shall contain a
provision requiring that no 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
development of affordable housing involved, and recipients
shall require certification as to the compliance with the
provisions of this section prior to making any payment under
such contract.
(2) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if the
individual receives no compensation or is paid expenses,
reasonable benefits, or a nominal fee to perform the services
for which the individual volunteered and such persons are not
otherwise employed at any time in the construction work.
(3) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the provisions of this
subsection.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment to the amendment be considered as
read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Alaska?
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, first let me say I do support the
amendment of the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth]. The Indian
housing problems in this Nation are severe. This is a good amendment
and I will be supporting it.
Mr. Chairman, I'm offering an amendment to the amendment by Mr.
Hayworth, to correct a problem relating to the application of the
Davis-Bacon Act to construction of Indian housing.
As written, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
contains language that would effectively prohibit application of the
Davis-Bacon Act to construction of Indian housing. I think this is
wrong. My amendment changes the language to ensure that the Davis-Bacon
Act applies to the construction of 12 or more units of Indian housing.
My amendment will make the gentleman's amendment more consistent with
current law, in which the Davis-Bacon Act applies to certain federally
[[Page H4722]]
subsidized construction contracts. I realize there is a larger debate
concerning Davis-Bacon at issue. However, this is not the place to
debate our views on Davis-Bacon, which I happen to support strongly.
Consideration of Davis-Bacon reform or repeal should be considered
separately and on its own merits. It should not be modified or repealed
in a piecemeal fashion through legislation like this.
I strongly support our effort to give more control and flexibility in
operating affordable housing projects to Indians. However, this is not
the place to address Davis-Bacon.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment, and I stress again,
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona, if my amendment is
adopted, is a good piece of legislation and I urge its passage.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Alaska offering this
amendment. This is a major concern that I have had with this amendment
in its present form. But with the amendment of the gentleman from
Alaska on prevailing wage, it is one of the major outstanding questions
concerning the Hayworth legislation as it exists. I appreciate the
gentleman from Alaska offering this amendment, and I urge Members to
support it.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Alaska if
this will continue to apply to publicly financed housing and not apply
to private?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, only
to publicly financed housing.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of this legislation.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, as I said, I support the amendment that the gentleman
from Alaska [Mr. Young] is offering, which basically exempts funds
provided under 12 units. The current Hayworth amendment did not do
that. I think it may have been a technical problem, but its consequence
is a major concern.
As I said, the Young amendment would provide prevailing wage, would
not apply for 12 units or less, and would provide the opportunity for
the Secretary to waive the provisions as provided by the Secretary
under similar authority existing in the CDBG program policy allocated
to Indian tribes.
Mr. Chairman, I have worked with those concerned with the request of
the gentleman from Alaska, and I appreciate his initiative in bringing
this amendment to the floor this afternoon.
It is my understanding that the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth]
is going to accept this amendment, and some of my concerns are
addressed with it. So, I urge my colleagues' support for the Young
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, inquiry. Do we address this amendment at
this juncture?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would point out that we can address the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Alaska at this point in the
process, and we can reserve the balance of debate time on both sides
once this amendment has been resolved. Or, we can wait until all the
time has been utilized.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alaska
[Mr. Young] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr.
Hayworth].
The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The question now before the House is the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], as amended.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time. I rise in strong support of the Hayworth amendment. It actually
does incorporate the provisions of H.R. 3219. Secretary Cisneros was
reported to have been told by the Navajo, the best thing he could do
for housing was to support the Republican bill, H.R. 3219. Actually, it
is a bipartisan bill and has been from the beginning.
amendment offered by mr. bereuter to the amendment offered by mr.
hayworth, as amended
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment, as
amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Bereuter to the amendment offered
by Mr. Hayworth, as amended: Page 77 of the amendment, after
line 19, insert the following new subsections:
(i) Principal Obligation Amounts.--Section 184(b)(5)(C) of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 is amended
by striking clause (i) and inserting the following new
clause:
``(i) 97.75 percent of the appraised value of the property
as of the date the loan is accepted for guarantee (or 98.75
percent if the value of the property is $50,000 or less);
and''.
(j) Availability of Amounts.--
(1) Requirement of appropriations.--Section 184(i)(5) of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 is amended
by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the following new
subparagraph:
``(A) Requirement of appropriations.--The authority of the
Secretary to enter into commitments to guarantee loans under
this section shall be effective for any fiscal year to the
extent or in such amounts as are or have been provided in
appropriations Acts, without regard to the fiscal year for
which such amounts were appropriated.''.
(2) Costs.--Section 184(i)(5)(B) of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1992 is amended by adding at the
end the following new sentence: ``Any amounts appropriated
pursuant to this subparagraph shall remain available until
expended.''.
(k) GNMA Authority.--The first sentence of section
306(g)(1) of the Federal National Mortgage Association
Charter Act (12 U.S.C. 1721(g)(1)) is amended by inserting
before the period at the end the following: ``; or guaranteed
under section 184 of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1992''.
Mr. BEREUTER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment to the amendment, as amended, be considered
as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Nebraska?
There was no objection.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has three rather simple
but important provisions which make improvements in the section 184
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program, first enacted in 1992. The
amendment authorizes funds appropriate to remain available until the
next fiscal year or until expended, raises the maximum loan level to
the same as FHA single-family loans, and provided that Ginnie Mae may
purchase loans under the program.
Mr. Chairman, I move for its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, this Member's amendment, which has been drafted in
cooperation with the administration, makes three very simple but
important improvements to the Section 184 Indian Housing Loan Guarantee
Program, first authorized through the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1992. This loan program, administered by the Department of
Housing and Urban Developments Office of Native American Programs, has
proven to be a highly popular and effective way to bring private market
participation to meet the housing needs in Indian country.
The current loan guarantee program allows Indians and Indian Housing
Authorities [IHAs] access to private financing that otherwise would not
be available to them because of the unique legal status of Indian trust
land. The Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund is used to guarantee loans
made to Indian families and IHAs for the construction, acquisition,
and rehabilitation of 1-4 family dwellings. This must be standard
housing and must be located on trust land or land located in an Indian
or Alaskan native area.
HUD works with tribes, lenders, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to
administer the loan program. HUD issues prequalification commitments
based on information received from the lender. The lender completes
property underwriting, and then submits the loan to HUD for firm
commitment. After the commitment is issued, the loan is closed and
serviced by the lender.
This Member's amendment makes three simple changes to the current
program. And this Member should note at this point that these changes
were suggested and are supported by HUD. First, the maximum loan amount
is raised to bring it in line with the widely-used FHA single-family
loan program. Specifically, for loans with appraised values of $50,000
or less, the maximum loan amount will be 98.75 percent of the appraised
value. For loan on properties valued above $50,000,
[[Page H4723]]
the loan may be 97.75 percent of the appraised value.
The second change made by this amendment is simple yet very
important. Because the construction process often does not conform to
the congressional budget cycle, this amendment authorizes funds
appropriated to remain available until expended.
The final change made by this Member's amendment is an expansion of
the authority of the Government National Mortgage Association, also
known as Ginnie Mae, to purchase loans guaranteed under this program.
Without this expansion, Ginnie Mae is not authorized to participate in
Indian country. I would like to note that the Nations largest housing
secondary market, Fannie Mae, has been instrumental in the programs
early successes. However, now is not the time to limit the sources of
capital for participating lenders. Rather, by adding Ginnie Mae as an
additional source of funds, this amendment would expand the capital
available in Indian country.
Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to vote for this
amendment, and for H.R. 2406.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the amendment of the gentleman from
Nebraska. It is a good amendment in terms of providing the Ginnie Mae
authority and the increased loans authority and availability. I think
this is exactly the type of help in terms of real financing improvement
and innovation that is necessary. I commend the gentleman from Nebraska
[Mr. Bereuter], an advocate throughout his career in Congress regarding
Indian housing, and native American policy, and I support this measure.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], as amended.
The amendment to the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, under this procedure it is rather awkward that one must
be in opposition. Obviously, I did not mean to surprise my colleague
from Arizona, but it was necessary in fact to use the time, and in the
present form, when the amendment was initially offered, I did not
support it.
Mr. Chairman, I appropriately recognize the amendments and changes
made have improved this amendment. I suggest to my colleagues who are
interested in Native American housing the severe problems we have in
this area. I hope this block grant approach accomplishes the noble
objectives that are expressed. I have my doubts considering the
infrastructure and other threshold issues that we face, but look
forward to working to see the positive goals become a reality.
We have a significant Native American population in the State that I
represent. I would like nothing better than to see them get better
housing. Some of the worst housing we have in this Nation is occupied
by Native Americans, and the commensurate problems that occur with it
greatly concern me as it relates to our direct and joint
responsibilities, the Secretary of HUD, the Bureau of Indian Affairs
and, of course, this Congress.
With that said, Mr. Chairman, I will now support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1615
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Bereuter
amendment to the Hayworth amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in strong support of the Hayworth
amendment. This amendment incorporates the text of H.R. 3219, the
Native American Housing Assistance Self-Determination Act of 1996. This
Member, along with his colleagues from Arizona, Mr. Hayworth, the
chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Lazio, and his colleague from the
other side of the aisle, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, introduced H.R.
3219. I say, perhaps immediately, but eventually, I believe that this
bill and Mr. Hayworth's amendment is the most important and beneficial
Indian housing initiative ever offered.
The concepts contained in this amendment are widely supported by
Indian groups, including the National American Indian Housing Council.
This revolutionary measure for the first time decouples predominantly
rural Indian housing from the laws which were designed to govern urban
public housing.
Additionally, the Hayworth amendment creates flexible block grants to
tribes or their tribally designated housing entity, recognizes and
supports the unique government-to-government relationship between
Indian tribes and the U.S. Government and restates the value of having
local control by giving the tribes greater flexibility in providing
housing, creates a consolidated native American housing grant--HUD's
Office of Native American Programs will be dedicated to helping Indian
communities meet their housing needs, with a common goal of achieving
economic self-sufficiency. HUD will enforce strict accountability
standards, and involves private capital markets and private lenders in
improving economic conditions by removing the legal barriers which have
kept private investors from participating in Indian country.
Specifically, the amendment replaces the 20-year leaseholds under
current law with a 40-year lease.
Unfortunately, this Member understands this important amendment has
been placed in jeopardy by the dubious opposition of big labor. The
measure strives to keep the costs, including labor costs, of providing
housing at its lowest possible level in order to provide maximum impact
for very limited funds. In a lobbying effort as late as last night, big
labor has equated a vote for housing Americas most underserved citizens
as a vote against big labor. Not concerned with what is good for
America, big labor has threatened to kill a measure which prohibits
inflated contract costs associated with the prevailing wages required
by the Davis-Bacon Act. With homelessness in Indian country at
embarrassingly high rates, we can ill-afford to waste a penny on such
questionable mandates as Davis-Bacon.
Although this Member strongly believes the prohibition against
applying Davis-Bacon to Indian housing should stay in the amendment,
this Member will not block a move to strike the language because the
urgent need to provide safe and adequate housing to Indians outweighs
this Member's opposition to Davis-Bacon.
Mr. Chairman, this Member again strongly urges his colleagues to
support Native Americans and vote in favor of the Hayworth amendment.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
(Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, as a representative of 14 tribes from the
Second District of Oklahoma, I rise in support of the Hayworth
amendment.
I would first like to thank Chairman Lazio and Congressman Hayworth
for their tremendous effort and dedication in putting together the
Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996.
I rise in support of this legislation in large part because the second
largest Native American tribe in the United States, the Cherokee,
reside in my district respectively. The 14 tribes which I represent in
Congress strongly support this landmark Indian housing reform bill.
The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma has a tribal membership which
currently numbers 170,000. Despite the large tribal size, the number of
Indian housing units is ridiculously low. The Housing authority of the
Cherokee Nation manages some 4,300 housing units under the Low Rent,
Section 8 and Mutual Help Homeownership Opportunity Program
administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Development. But the
tribe's need for housing is much, much greater.
The Cherokee Nations Housing Authority budget has grown from $8
million to $30 million and its work force has increased from 65 to 250
employees. This growth is due, in part, to the Housing Authority's
ability to leverage Federal dollars, to the extent HUD's program
constraints allow. Still, most Cherokee tribal members live in crowded
Indian housing units in conditions considerably more severe than those
of the non-Indian populations.
Mr. Chairman, Tribes and Indian Housing Authorities like those of the
Cherokee Nation are prime examples of what is achievable in Indian
management working with scarce resources. They have successfully
leveraged Federal programs available for housing and other assistance
to Native Americans with whatever other outside financing they can
identify.
Mr. Hayworth's amendment will advance this progress substantially by
separating from public housing programs the Indian housing programs and
moving toward deregulation of those Indian housing programs. Tribes and
their housing authorities will be better able to leverage Federal
dollars with private financing to construct new housing and renovate
existing units in Indian country.
The most important feature of this bill is the procedure of block
granting the federal funds
[[Page H4724]]
for Indian housing programs. The block grant approach is fully
consistent with the concept of Indian self-determination and self-
governance.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Mr.
Hayworth's amendment, and adopting it as part of H.R. 2406.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Watts], a gentleman I would have loved to block for on
the gridiron.
(Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to
vote for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr.
Hayworth] to add a new title called the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996. The amendment helps to
leverage private sector capital to the Indian housing market where it
is much needed. The amendment provides loan guarantees for affordable
housing activities, thus providing for greater involvement of the
financial community.
Substantially similar to the popular section 108 loan guarantee
program for community development block grants, this bill allows Indian
housing authorities to borrow or issue debt equal to up to 5 years
worth of allocation under the housing grants formula to be paid back
over not more than 20 years with the full faith and credit of the
United States. The Hayworth amendment helps the tribes move to a place
where they are able to better self-govern.
Block grants to tribal governments and tribal housing authorities is
a step in the right direction. It allows tribes to determine what their
local tribal housing needs are and how they should be met.
In closing, I would like to commend and thank the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Lazio], the chairman, and the gentleman from Arizona [Mr.
Hayworth], and their fine staff for the hard work on the Native
American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996. I urge
my colleagues to join me in voting to adopt this innovative proposal.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Lazio], distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on
Housing and Community Development.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, this is an important, it is not
just important substantively but it is important in terms of process.
For the first time, native Americans had input, had the ability to
influence the process to reflect the values and the concerns that they
had back in Indian country.
When we had a hearing, and we have had several different meetings
with leaders, including housing specialists from the Indian country, we
invited people from Indian country and we invited native Americans in
to hear their story, to understand what the concerns are, to understand
how further progress was being blocked by a structure that was now
clearly obsolete and out of date. This is an effort to move us forward.
Mr. Chairman, it gives native Americans many of the same tools that
have been so dramatic in terms of helping our Nation's communities.
Most importantly the loan guarantee program that will allow, in some of
the most rural areas of our Nation, where some of the worst housing
conditions in our entire Nation are, the ability to leverage money and
to have larger developments that are cost-effective and bring more hope
and more opportunity to native Americans. I am very proud of this
effort, and I ask for its support.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds, simply to say
that I echo the comments of the chairman of the subcommittee. I thank
him for his efforts.
I thank my colleague from Minnesota for pointing out some legitimate
policy differences. But make no mistake, this is historic legislation
which empowers the first Americans with what should be the right of
first Americans. That is the right to find the dwelling of their choice
and to empower them to be meaningful members not only of their own
communities but of this Nation at large.
I urge adoption of this amendment as it has been amended.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], as amended.
The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to the bill?
amendment no. 22 offered by mr. roemer
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Roemer:
H.R. 2406
At the end of the bill, insert the following new title:
TITLE VI--NATIONAL MANUFACTURED HOUSING CONSTRUCTION AND SAFETY
STANDARDS CONSENSUS COMMITTEE
SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCE.
(a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``National
Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of
1996''.
(b) Reference.--Whenever in this title an amendment is
expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a
section or other provision, the reference shall be considered
to be made to that section or other provision of the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1974.
SEC. 602. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.
Section 602 (42 U.S.C. 5401) is amended by striking the
first sentence and inserting the following: ``The Congress
declares that the purposes of this title are to reduce the
number of personal injuries and deaths and property damage
resulting from manufactured home accidents and to establish a
balanced consensus process for the development, revision, and
interpretation of Federal construction and safety standards
for manufactured homes.''.
SEC. 603. DEFINITIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 603 (42 U.S.C. 5402) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``dealer'' and inserting
``retailer'';
(2) in paragraph (12), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(3) in paragraph (13), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(14) `consensus committee' means the committee
established under section 604(a)(7); and
``(15) `consensus standards development process' means the
process by which additions and revisions to the Federal
manufactured home construction and safety standards shall be
developed and recommended to the Secretary by the consensus
committee.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Occurrences of ``dealer''.--The Act (42 U.S.C. 5401 et
seq.) is amended by striking ``dealer'' and inserting
``retailer'' in each of the following provisions:
(A) In section 613, each place such term appears.
(B) In section 614(f), each place such term appears.
(C) In section 615(b)(1).
(D) In section 616.
(2) Other amendments.--The Act (42 U.S.C. 5401 et seq.) is
amended--
(A) in section 615(b)(3), by striking ``dealer or dealers''
and inserting ``retailer or retailers''; and
(B) by striking ``dealers'' and inserting ``retailers''
each place such term appears--
(i) in section 615(d);
(ii) in section 615(f); and
(iii) in section 623(c)(9).
SEC. 604. FEDERAL MANUFACTURED HOME CONSTRUCTION AND SAFETY
STANDARDS.
Section 604 (42 U.S.C. 5403) is amended--
(1) by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the
following new subsections:
``(a) Establishment.--
``(1) Authority.--The Secretary shall establish, by order,
appropriate Federal manufactured home construction and safety
standards. Each such Federal manufactured home standard shall
be reasonable and shall meet the highest standards of
protection, taking into account existing State and local laws
relating to manufactured home safety and construction. The
Secretary shall issue all such orders pursuant to the
consensus standards development process under this
subsection. The Secretary may issue orders which are not part
of the consensus standards development process only in
accordance with subsection (b).
``(2) Consensus standards development process.--Not later
than 180 days after the date of enactment of the National
Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of
1996, the Secretary shall enter into a cooperative agreement
or establish a relationship with a qualified technical or
building code organization to administer the consensus
standards development process and establish a consensus
committee under paragraph (7). Periodically, the Secretary
shall review such organization's performance and may replace
the organization upon a finding of need.
``(3) Revisions.--The consensus committee established under
paragraph (7) shall consider revisions to the Federal
manufactured home construction and safety standards and shall
submit revised standards to the Secretary at least once
during every 2-year period, the first such 2-year period
beginning
[[Page H4725]]
upon the appointment of the consensus committee under
paragraph (7). Before submitting proposed revised standards
to the Secretary, the consensus committee shall cause the
proposed revised standards to be published in the Federal
Register, together with a description of the consensus
committee's considerations and decisions under subsection
(e), and shall provide an opportunity for public comment.
Public views and objections shall be presented to the
consensus committee in accordance with American National
Standards Institute procedures. After such notice and
opportunity public comment, the consensus committee shall
cause the recommended revisions to the standards and notice
of its submission to the Secretary to be published in the
Federal Register. Such notice shall describe the
circumstances under which the proposed revised standards
could become effective.
``(4) Review by secretary.--The Secretary shall either
adopt, modify, or reject the standards submitted by the
consensus committee. A final order adopting the standards
shall be issued by the Secretary not later than 12 months
after the date the standards are submitted to the Secretary
by the consensus committee, and shall be published in the
Federal Register and become effective pursuant to subsection
(c). If the Secretary--
``(A) adopts the standards recommended by the consensus
committee, the Secretary may issue a final order directly
without further rulemaking;
``(B) determines that any portion of the standards should
be rejected because it would jeopardize health or safety or
is inconsistent with the purposes of this title, a notice to
that effect, together with this reason for rejecting the
proposed standard, shall be published in the Federal Register
no later than 12 months after the date the standards are
submitted to the Secretary by the consensus committee;
``(C) determines that any portion of the standard should be
modified because it would jeopardize health or safety or is
inconsistent with the purposes of this title--
``(i) such determination shall be made no later that 12
months after the date the standards are submitted to the
Secretary by the consensus committee;
``(ii) within such 12-month period, the Secretary shall
cause the proposed modified standard to be published in the
Federal Register, together with an explanation of the reason
for the Secretary's determination that the consensus
committee recommendation needs to be modified, and shall
provide an opportunity for public comment in accordance with
the provisions of section 553 of title 5, United States Code;
and
``(iii) the final standard shall become effective pursuant
to subsection (c).
``(5) Failure to act.--If the Secretary fails to take final
action under paragraph (4) and publish notice of the action
in the Federal Register within the 12-month period under such
paragraph, the recommendations of the consensus committee
shall be considered to have been adopted by the Secretary and
shall take effect upon the expiration of the 180-day period
that begins upon the conclusion of the 12-month period.
Within 10 days after the expiration of the 12-month period,
the Secretary shall cause to be published in the Federal
Register notice of the Secretary's failure to act, the
revised standards, and the effective date of the revised
standards. Such notice shall be deemed an order of the
Secretary approving the revised standards proposed by the
consensus committee.
``(6) Interpretive bulletins.--The Secretary may issue
interpretive bulletins to clarify the meaning of any Federal
manufactured home construction and safety standards, subject
to the following requirements:
``(A) Review by consensus committee.--Before issuing an
interpretive bulletin, the Secretary shall submit the
proposed bulletin to the consensus committee and the
consensus committee shall have 90 days to provide written
comments thereon to the Secretary. If the consensus committee
fails to act or if the Secretary rejects any significant
views recommended by the consensus committee, the Secretary
shall explain in writing to the consensus committee, before
the bulletin becomes effective, the reasons for such
rejection.
``(B) Proposals.--The consensus committee may, from time to
time, submit to the Secretary proposals for interpretive
bulletins under this subsection. If the Secretary fails to
issue or rejects a proposed bulletin within 90 days of its
receipt, the Secretary shall be considered to have approved
the proposed bulletin and shall immediately issue the
bulletin.
``(C) Effect.--Interpretative bulletins issued under this
paragraph shall become binding without rulemaking.
``(7) Consensus committee.--
``(A) Purpose.--The consensus committee referred to in
paragraph (2) shall have as its purpose providing periodic
recommendations to the Secretary to revise and interpret the
Federal manufactured home construction and safety standards
and carrying out such other functions assigned to the
committee under this title. The committee shall be organized
and carry out its business in a manner that guarantees a fair
opportunity for the expression and consideration of various
positions.
``(B) Membership.--The consensus committee shall be
composed of 25 members who shall be appointed as follows:
``(i) Appointment by process administrator.--Members shall
be appointed by the qualified technical or building code
organization that administers the consensus standards
development process pursuant to paragraph (2), subject to the
approval of the Secretary.
``(ii) Balanced membership.--Members shall be appointed in
a manner designed to include all interested parties without
domination by any single interest category.
``(iii) Selection procedures and requirements.--Members
shall be appointed in accordance with selection procedures
for consensus committees promulgated by the American National
Standards Institute, except that the American National
Standards Institute interest categories shall be modified to
ensure representation on the committee by individuals
representing the following fields, in equal numbers under
each of the following subclauses:
``(I) Manufacturers.
``(II) Retailers, insurers, suppliers, lenders, community
owners and private inspection agencies which have a financial
interest in the industry.
``(III) Homeowners and consumer representatives.
``(IV) Public officials, such as those from State or local
building code enforcement and inspection agencies.
``(V) General interest, including academicians,
researchers, architects, engineers, private inspection
agencies, and others.
Members of the consensus committee shall be qualified by
background and experience to participate in the work of the
committee, but members by reason of subclauses (III), (IV),
and (V), except the private inspection agencies, may not have
a financial interest in the manufactured home industry,
unless such bar to participation is waived by the Secretary.
The number of members by reason of subclause (V) who
represent private inspection agencies may not constitute more
than 20 percent of the total number of members by reason of
subclause (V). Notwithstanding any other provision of this
paragraph, the Secretary shall appoint a member of the
consensus committee, who shall not have voting privileges.
``(C) Meetings.--The consensus committee shall cause
advance notice of all meetings to be published in the Federal
Register and all meetings of the committee shall be open to
the public.
``(D) Authority.--Sections 203, 205, 207, and 208 of title
18, United States Code, shall not apply to the members of the
consensus committee. Members shall not be considered to be
special government employees for purposes of part 2634 of
title 5, Code of Federal Regulations. The consensus committee
shall not be considered an advisory committee for purposes of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
``(E) Administration.--The consensus committee and the
administering organization shall operate in conformance with
American National Standards Institute procedures for the
development and coordination of American National Standards
and shall apply to such Institute to obtain accreditation.
``(F) Staff.--The consensus committee shall be provided
reasonable staff resources by the administering organization.
Upon a showing of need and subject to the approval of the
Secretary, the administering organization shall furnish
technical support to any of the various interest categories
on the consensus committee.
``(b) Other Orders.--The Secretary may issue orders that
are not developed under the procedures set forth in
subsection (a) in order to respond to an emergency health or
safety issue, or to address issues on which the Secretary
determines the consensus committee will not make timely
recommendations, but only if the proposed order is first
submitted by the Secretary to the consensus committee for
review and the committee is afforded 90 days to provide its
views on the proposed order to the Secretary. If the
consensus committee fails to act within such period or if the
Secretary rejects any significant change recommended by the
consensus committee, the public notice of the order shall
include an explanation of the reasons for the Secretary's
action. The Secretary may issue such orders only in
accordance with the provisions of section 553 of title 5,
United States Code.'';
(2) by striking subsection (e);
(3) in subsection (f), by striking the matter preceding
paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(e) Considerations in Establishing and Interpreting
Standards.--The consensus committee, in recommending
standards and interpretations, and the Secretary, in
establishing standards or issuing interpretations under this
section, shall--'';
(4) by striking subsection (g);
(5) in the first sentence of subsection (j), by striking
``subsection (f)'' and inserting ``subsection (e)''; and
(6) by redesignating subsections (h), (i), and (j) as
subsections (f), (g), and (h), respectively.
SEC. 605. ABOLISHMENT OF NATIONAL MANUFACTURED HOME ADVISORY
COUNCIL.
Section 605 (42 U.S.C. 5404) is hereby repealed.
SEC. 606. PUBLIC INFORMATION.
Section 607 (42 U.S.C. 5406) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``to the Secretary'' after ``submit''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``Such
cost and other information shall be submitted to the
consensus committee by the Secretary for its evaluation.'';
[[Page H4726]]
(2) in subsection (d), by inserting ``, the consensus
committee,'' after ``public,''; and
(3) by striking subsection (c) and redesignating
subsections (d) and (e) as subsections (c) and (d),
respectively.
SEC. 607. INSPECTION FEES.
Section 620 (42 U.S.C. 5419) is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 620. (a) Authority To Establish Fees.--In carrying
out the inspections required under this title and in
developing standards pursuant to section 604, the Secretary
may establish and impose on manufactured home manufacturers,
distributors, and retailers such reasonable fees as may be
necessary to offset the expenses incurred by the Secretary in
conducting such inspections and administering the consensus
standards development process and for developing standards
pursuant to section 604(b), and the Secretary may use any
fees so collected to pay expenses incurred in connection
therewith. Such fees shall only be modified pursuant to
rulemaking in accordance with the provisions of section 553
of title 5, United States Code.
``(b) Deposit of Fees.--Fees collected pursuant to this
title shall be deposited in a fund, which is hereby
established in the Treasury for deposit of such fees. Amounts
in the fund are hereby available for use by the Secretary
pursuant to subsection (a). The use of these fees by the
Secretary shall not be subject to general or specific
limitations on appropriated funds unless use of these fees is
specifically addressed in any future appropriations
legislation. The Secretary shall provide an annual report to
Congress indicating expenditures under this section. The
Secretary shall also make available to the public, in
accordance with all applicable disclosure laws, regulations,
orders, and directives, information pertaining to such funds,
including information pertaining to amounts collected,
amounts disbursed, and the fund balance.''.
SEC. 608. ELIMINATION OF ANNUAL REPORT REQUIREMENT.
Section 626 (42 U.S.C. 5425) is hereby repealed.
SEC. 609. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this title shall take effect on the
date of enactment of this Act, except that the amendments
shall have no effect on any order or interpretative bulletin
that is published as a proposed rule pursuant to the
provisions of section 553 of title 5, United States Code, on
or before that date.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the agreement of May 8, the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Roemer] will be recognized for 10 minutes in support of
his amendment, and a Member in opposition will be recognized for 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I offer this bipartisan amendment on behalf of myself, the gentleman
from California [Mr. Royce], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez],
the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert], the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Vento], and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
Mr. Chairman, nothing is more important to our American society, to
our citizens, our consumers and our businesses than addressing the
excessive cost of regulation. Nowhere is it more true and more accurate
than its impact and its negative impact on the manufactured housing
industry. Along those lines, 4\1/2\ months ago we sat down with
Secretary Cisneros, with consumer groups, with Democrats and
Republicans, and we started working out a way by which we can cut back
on the cost to the manufactured housing industry of promulgating even
simple new changes to regulatory laws and standards.
We came up with a very delicate balance here, this bipartisan bill.
This bill will make it much easier to promulgate these regulations and
standards because the consumers are at the table, the businesses are at
the table, and it is not just Federal mandates coming out of HUD.
This is commonsense legislation whereby some people have always said
regulations are the answer. Now, more and more in the last year we have
heard no regulations should be out there. We are saying, let us come up
with a third alternative, a new idea and bring Democrats and
Republicans together.
Here is what AARP is saying, because so many senior citizens live in
this affordable, quality housing and manufactured homes: I am writing
to express the strong support of the American Association of Retired
Persons for the Royce-Roemer amendment, which would establish a
balanced consensus process for the development, revision, and
interpretation of Federal construction and safety standards for
manufactured homes.
We have reached this balance with Secretary Cisneros and HUD and
Democrats and Republicans, consumer groups, AARP, we have this delicate
balance now. We would hope that this amendment would be passed, that we
could get this onto this bill. We have indications that this will be
supported in the Senate and by the President.
If, however, amendments are attached to this bill where we have not
had hearings, where there is currently litigation and there are
currently different issues before the courts, where there has been no
input, no input into the very delicate and technical dialog that we
have had with these groups over the last 4\1/2\ months, then we
probably get nothing. We probably do not get this consensus committee.
We probably do not get the ability to save the consumer and the
businesses the money. We probably do not get this new idea.
I would urge my colleagues to vote for the Roemer amendment, the
Royce amendment, the Calvert amendment, the Gonzalez and Vento
amendment and in the bipartisan fashion that we should be working
together around here and to strongly reject any kinds of attempts to
write legislation at the last minute on the floor without hearings and
to support this in the sense of this is not going to cost the taxpayer
one nickel. All of the money that puts forward this consensus committee
comes from the industry.
I am very happy to propose this amendment on behalf of the gentleman
from California [Mr. Royce] and myself.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek to control the time in opposition
to the amendment?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I do.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], and I ask
unanimous consent that he be permitted to control the time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
(Mr. McINTOSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, this body recognized many years ago that
manufactured homes fulfill a vital need in the American housing market.
Manufactured homes always have been unique. They offer Americans an
option to buy affordable housing. Manufactured homes make homeowners of
hundreds of thousands of Americans who might otherwise be forced to
rely on public assistance and forgo one of the basic elements of the
American dream, a home of their own.
Now, in order to ensure both the safety and affordability of
manufactured homes, Congress, in 1974, adopted the National
Manufactured Home Construction Safety Standards Act. HUD has issued
many standards but delivered very little in terms of consumer benefit
under this act. It has imposed costs that in many ways have made
manufactured housing unaffordable for those who could most benefit from
this industry.
So today I rise in opposition to my colleague from Indiana's
amendment.
Amendment Offered by Mr. McIntosh as a Substitute for the Amendment
Offered by Mr. Roemer
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for
the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. McIntosh as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. Roemer:
At the end of the bill, insert the following new title:
TITLE VI--MANUFACTURED HOUSING CONSTRUCTION AND SAFETY STANDARDS
CONSENSUS COMMITTEE
SEC. 601. REFERENCE.
Whenever in this title an amendment is expressed in terms
of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other
provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to
that section or other provision of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974.
SEC. 602. DEFINITIONS.
Section 603 (42 U.S.C. 5402) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following
new paragraph:
[[Page H4727]]
``(7) `Federal manufactured home construction and safety
standard' means a reasonable performance standard for the
construction, design, and transportation of a manufactured
home which meets the needs of the public including the need
for affordability, quality, durability, and safety;'';
(2) in paragraph (12), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(3) in paragraph (13), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(4) by adding at the end thereof the following new
paragraphs:
``(14) `consensus committee' means the body established to
provide periodic recommendations to the Secretary pursuant to
the provisions of section 604;
``(15) `consensus process' means the process by which the
consensus committee, established pursuant to section 604,
recommends to the Secretary any additions, revocations, and/
or amendments to the Federal manufactured home construction
and safety standards and any related interpretations;
``(16) `transportation' means the movement of a
manufactured home or manufactured home components from the
manufacturing facility to a retailer's place of business or a
location selected by the purchaser, and the movement of a
manufactured home or manufactured home components from the
retailers's place of business to a site selected by the home
purchaser, where applicable; and
``(17) `Secretariat' means the qualified technical or
building code maintenance organization selected by the
Secretary to administer the consensus process, and to appoint
the members of the consensus committee established under
section 604.''.
SEC. 603. FEDERAL MANUFACTURED HOME CONSTRUCTION AND SAFETY
STANDARDS.
(a) In General.--Section 604 (42 U.S.C. 5403) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following
new subsection:
``(a) Establishment.--
``(1) Authority of secretary.--The Secretary shall
establish, by order, appropriate Federal manufactured home
design, construction, transportation, and safety performance
standards that shall be reasonable, practicable, objectively
stated, and reflective of current developments in building
standards and technology. The Secretary shall issue such
orders pursuant to the consensus process described in this
section.
``(2) Establishment of consensus committee and
procedures.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of the United States Housing Act of 1996, the
Secretary, in accordance with all relevant statutes,
regulations, orders, and directives pertaining to
competitively bid procurement, shall enter into a contract
with a qualified technical or building code organization to
administer a consensus process as its secretariat and to
establish a manufactured housing consensus committee and
appoint the members of that committee. The performance of
such secretariat shall be reviewed by the Secretary on a
periodic basis. The consensus committee shall be exempt from
the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. All
meetings shall be open to the public, and advance notice of
such meetings shall be provided in the Federal Register. Any
final action by the consensus committee shall be taken only
after notice to the public and opportunity for public comment
in accordance with the provisions of section 553 and
subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code.
``(3) Selection and qualifications.--The consensus
committee shall function, and its members shall be selected,
in accordance with the procedures for consensus committees
promulgated by the American National Standards Institute.
Members of the consensus committee shall be qualified to
participate in the work of the committee. The consensus
committee and the secretariat organization shall be certified
by the American National Standards Institute and shall be
provided reasonable staff resources by the administering
organization.
``(4) Responsibilities.--The consensus committee
established under this subsection shall be responsible for
the maintenance and revision of the Federal manufactured home
construction and safety standards, including the
interpretation of such standards.
``(5) Revisions to standards.--The consensus committee
shall consider additions, deletion, and amendments to the
Federal manufactured home construction and safety standards,
as needed, over a 2-year cycle. The consensus committee,
after notice and an opportunity for public comment, shall
publish any proposed standards or revisions and notice of
their submission to the Secretary, in the Federal Register.
This notice shall describe the circumstances under which the
proposed standards could become effective.
``(6) Secretary's response.--The Secretary may either adopt
or reject the standards submitted by the consensus committee.
A final order adopting such a standard, or rejecting such a
standard, shall be issued by the Secretary no later than 180
days after the date the proposed standard or regulation is
submitted to the Secretary by the consensus committee, and
shall be published in the Federal Register. In the event that
the Secretary rejects, in whole or in part, such a standard,
such publication shall be preceded by publication of the
proposed standard and the Secretary's proposed final order
for public comment in accordance with section 553 and
subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code.
``(7) Failure to take action.--If the Secretary fails to
take final action under paragraph (6) and publish notice of
the action in the Federal Register within the required 180-
day period, the recommendations of the consensus committee
shall take effect 60 days after the 180-day period. Within 10
days after the expiration of the 180-day period, the
consensus committee shall publish in the Federal Register
notice of the Secretary's failure to act, the revised
standards, and the effective date of the revised standards.
``(8) Interim emergency standards.--The Secretary shall
have the authority at any time to request that the consensus
committee develop interim emergency performance standards or
amendments to the standards, when necessary to respond to a
health or safety emergency, as determined by the Secretary in
writing. The consensus committee shall have 60 days to submit
such proposed interim standards or amendments following a
request by the Secretary.
``(9) Written interpretations.--Upon request from an
interested party and after a finding that such an
interpretation is reasonably necessary, the consensus
committee shall submit to the Secretary written
interpretations of the Federal manufactured home construction
and safety standards. These interpretations shall become
binding upon the completion of notice and comment rulemaking
procedures by the Secretary in accordance with section 553
and subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, United States
Code, which shall be instituted within 180 days of the
Secretary's receipt of such an interpretation. The Secretary
may reject, in whole or in part, an interpretation only upon
a written finding that the interpretation is inconsistent
with the purposes of this title.'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``All'' and inserting ``Except as expressly
provided herein, all''; and
(B) by inserting ``and subchapter II of chapter 5'' after
``section 553'';
(3) in subsection (c), by striking ``Each'' and all that
follows through ``effect,'' and inserting the following:
``Each order establishing, amending, deleting, or
interpreting a Federal manufactured home construction and
safety standard shall specify the date such standard,
amendment, or interpretation is to take effect,'';
(4) by striking subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g) and
inserting the following new subsections:
``(d) Preemption.--Except as may otherwise be expressly
authorized by the provisions of this title, a State or local
unit of government shall not establish, continue in effect,
or enforce any standard pertaining to the design,
construction, transportation, or safety of manufactured homes
after the effective date of the United States Housing Act of
1996. The standards mandated by this title are deemed
complete and exhaustive and shall supersede and preempt State
and local law and regulations.
``(e) Considerations.--The consensus committee, in
recommending performance standards and issuing
interpretations, and the Secretary, in establishing such
standards and standards interpretations under this title,
shall--
``(1) consider relevant, reliable manufactured home
construction and safety data, including the results of the
research, development, testing, and evaluation activities
conducted pursuant to this title, and those activities
conducted by private organizations and other governmental
agencies to determine how best to promote the purposes of
this title;
``(2) consult with such State or interstate agencies
(including legislative committees) as they deem appropriate;
``(3) consider whether any such proposed performance
standard or standard interpretation is reasonable for the
particular type of manufactured home or for the geographic
region for which it is adopted;
``(4) consider the probable effect of such standard or
standard interpretation on the cost of the manufactured homes
to purchasers and potential purchasers; and
``(5) consider the extent to which any such standard or
standard interpretation will contribute to carrying out the
purposes of this title.'';
(5) by redesignating subsections (h), (i), and (j) as
subsections (f), (h), and (i), respectively;
(6) by inserting after subsection (f) (as so redesignated
by paragraph (5) of this subsection) the following new
subsection:
``(g) Evaluation Methodologies.--Based on a finding of
need, as determined in writing by the Secretary, the
consensus committee may, in accordance with the provisions of
this section, establish reasonable, cost-effective, uniform
evaluation methodologies in order to determine compliance
with existing standards, or may evaluate proposed
methodologies.''; and
(7) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(j) Required Use of Consensus Process.--After the date of
the enactment of the United States Housing Act of 1996, the
Secretary shall not adopt or amend any standards or standards
interpretations other than through the consensus process set
forth in this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 610 (42 U.S.C.
5409(a)(6)) is amended by striking ``subsection (h)'' and
inserting ``subsection (f)''.
SEC. 604. INSPECTION FEES.
Section 620 (42 U.S.C. 5419) is amended to read as follows:
[[Page H4728]]
``inspection and collection and utilization of fees
``Sec. 620. (a) Establishment.--The Secretary may establish
and impose, on manufactured home manufacturers, distributors,
and dealers, a reasonable fee to offset the necessary
expenses incurred in conducting the inspections required by
this title and the expenses incurred by the consensus
committee in performing its duties under this title. Such
fees shall be established and/or modified pursuant to notice
and comment rulemaking in accordance with section 553 and
subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code.
``(b) Use.--Fees collected pursuant to this title shall be
deposited in a dedicated fund and shall be expended only for
the functions specified in subsection (a), and shall be
subject for expenditure only to the extent approved in an
appropriations Act. The Secretary shall provide an annual
report to the Congress specifying expenditures of these
funds. The Secretary shall also make available to the public,
in accordance with all applicable disclosure statutes,
regulations, orders, or directives, information pertaining to
such funds, including but not limited to, information
pertaining to amounts collected, amounts disbursed, and the
fund balance.''.
Mr. McINTOSH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment be
considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that the
substitute amendment be added to this bill for three reasons.
First, HUD has simply failed to write commonsense building standards
and my colleague's amendment, as well intended as it is, does not do
anything to remove the discretion from HUD in setting forth those
standards. HUD has consistently failed to consider the technological
changes in the industry and building materials, often specifies very
bureaucratic specific standards rather than a more common sense
performance-based approach that would allow the engineers in the
industry to develop the most affordable ways of providing for safe and
effective housing.
I would like to share with my colleagues two examples of this. I was
conducting a field hearing in Florida and heard testimony about wind
regulations there that were developed in such a way that they increased
the cost of affordable housing of a $30,000 home by $3,000. That is a
10-percent increase. Many people are no longer able to afford those
houses because of those regulations that were not necessary because
they go beyond the local requirements for site built housing.
Another example was HUD regulations on insulation. When the
insulation industry came to them and asked them to increase the
standards beyond what was necessary for energy efficiency, the average
cost of a $28,000 rose to $2,100, again nearly a 10-percent increase
passed on to the consumer who could no longer afford to buy the houses.
The second reason is that my amendment would give us a very real
consensus committee. The consumer groups, the environmental groups, the
industry groups would all be included in the new consensus committee.
Unfortunately, my colleague's amendment does not require HUD to use the
advice of this consensus committee in developing regulations where my
substitute would require that the agency do that.
The third reason and the final point is that my substitute would
require that all of HUD's spending in this area go through the regular
appropriations process. Currently, HUD is able to accumulate funds from
the industry and disburse them in ways that are not supervised by this
Congress. My amendment would take care of that by requiring that these
funds go through an appropriations bill.
The amendment is fair. It is a genuine effort to get to commonsense
regulations. It is supported by the Manufacturing Housing Institute in
Louisiana, Alabama, and Texas. It is supported by many of the
manufacturers in our home State. I would urge my colleagues today to
vote for my substitute so that we can have a real consensus committee
at work and have an opportunity to get to commonsense regulations.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
{time} 1630
Mr. ROEMER. The gentleman mentioned that he is trying to be inclusive
of these consumer groups. Has he worked with any of those consumer
groups, and why are they opposed to his legislation?
Mr. McINTOSH. I am not exactly sure why they are opposed to these
groups. The provisions that we would have in our substitute would
require HUD to include them in making the regulatory recommendations.
The difference is that the consumer groups would not be able to do an
end run around the consensus committee and ask the Secretary to ignore
its recommendation.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I
would just say to the gentleman that, in relation to wind standards,
that he very articulately discussed on his time that the gentleman from
California [Mr. Calvert] and I were in Congress before the gentleman
from Indiana, and we worked very closely with the industry and very
closely with HUD to address that problem, and I think my colleague
would find that the manufactured housing industry was very pleased,
after going through very rough treatment from HUD, what we were able to
accomplish in terms of getting commonsense solutions to that wind
standard that they initially promulgated.
This consensus committee that we have developed in our bipartisan
legislation with HUD will prevent that kind of fiasco from happening
again.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California
[Mr. Calvert], an original cosponsor of the legislation.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the McIntosh
amendment and certainly in favor of the Roemer-Royce amendment to the
United States Housing Act. The McIntosh amendment is a poison pill
meant to kill this commonsense reform that we are working on.
The McIntosh amendment is certainly opposed by HUD. But more
importantly, the great majority, the great majority of the industry,
the manufactured industry here in the United States, is also in
opposition, along with many, many consumer groups. It is an unworkable
proposal that flies in the face of this Congress's efforts to return
authority to State and local governments.
It is of particular concern to California as the McIntosh language
would more than likely prevent local governments from allowing fire
sprinklers in manufactured housing, a great concern in my area, and as
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] mentioned, the problem we have
had with wind and sheer in the Florida area, we could have had that
resolved if this committee was in effect earlier.
On the other hand, the Roemer-Royce amendment has broad bipartisan
support and the backing, as I mentioned earlier, of industry, HUD and
consumers. It creates a committee consisting of manufacturers,
consumers, public officials and other interest groups. This committee
will develop standards for manufactured housing in partnership with the
HUD secretary.
Let us not lose an opportunity to enact commonense reform. Reject the
poison-pill McIntosh amendment and support the bipartisan Roemer-Royce-
Calvert proposal.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
(Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the
McIntosh amendment, but in strong support of the Roemer underlying
proposal. I think what we have here is an opportunity today to be able
to do something for manufactured housing that has been needed for a
long time.
It is absolutely necessary that we have a consensus committee. It has
to be established. I do not think any of us disagree with that fact.
HUD, the consumer groups, everybody understands that.
The manufactured housing, affordable housing for everybody, is very,
very important in the State of Florida as it is in California and in
much of the country today. Many low- and middle-income Americans are
very dependent on it, and it is time that we have the
[[Page H4729]]
benefit and the knowledge and the input of the building codes and
standards for the most knowledgeable people possible in the industry.
This amendment, the underlying amendment, would guarantee a balance
among the various interests that are involved.
We must reform the current process that HUD uses to develop the
construction and safety standards for manufactured homes because,
simply put, it does not work right now. The consensus committee that
the Royce-Roemer amendment establishes will streamline the regulatory
process and accept input from members of the industry, consumer groups,
and HUD, but it will not go as far as the McIntosh amendment does.
I question whether the McIntosh amendment is constitutional.
Specifically, his proposal would require the Secretary to either adopt
without modification or reject the consensus committee's proposal, and
that action must be further to notice and comment rulemaking even
though a full administrative record has already been produced.
It also precludes the Secretary from acting on his own, even when the
consensus committee fails to act in a timely manner. It creates
roadblocks to timely implementation of code interpretations needed to
resolve uncertainties that arise in planned inspections, and the
Secretary, under the McIntosh amendment, would have no ability to
insure that membership of the private consensus committee to whom the
Federal authority is being delegated represents all the interests.
It is defective in a number of ways is what I am saying, and as much
as I respect the gentleman from Indiana who has offered it, Mr.
McIntosh, I respect this gentleman's amendment as the one that the
industry groups support. The AARP supports it. I support it. I think
that most of our colleagues should reject Mr. McIntosh's stronger,
tougher, if he wants to call it, version in light on the fact we have
something with the Roemer proposal that really will work.
Mr. Chairman, we need to get on with it, and as the gentleman from
California said, unfortunately probably the McIntosh amendment is a
killer amendment to what we are trying to do.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from the great State of Florida [Mr. Stearns],
where so many New Yorkers reside.
Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleague for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, this is a tough call, and I want to say frankly I am
one of the original cosponsors of the Roemer amendment, and I support
what he was doing until I had a better understanding what the gentleman
from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] is doing.
So I say to my colleagues, let me just say how I view it: That the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] has done something here which to
the manufacturing home industry in itself is perhaps something they
want more than the Roemer amendment, but the Roemer amendment has a
chance in the sense there is a lot of consensus, a lot of people that
favor it up here in Washington. In the beltway a lot of people think
this is the best thing to do.
But if my colleagues go back to my home congressional district, in
fact if they go back to Nobility Home and they talk to Terry Trexler,
who is the president of this company who has struggled in the trenches
with this regulation and has dealt with this for years, he says he
would rather have the McIntosh amendment than the Roemer amendment.
So what we have here basically is we have an amendment which will
affect the people who are working in the industry better than the Romer
amendment, so I say to my colleagues reluctantly I would like them to
support the McIntosh amendment. I think it is a better thing to do, and
I think overall that this will bring a little bit more sense to the
industry, and in fact this is something on the Senate side, as I
understand, and I might have a colloquy with the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. McIntosh] if I could get his attention.
I would ask the gentleman from Indiana, if I can take a moment, can
he tell me on the Senate side what kind of bill they have? Does it
closely parallel the gentleman's or the gentleman from Indiana, Mr.
Roemer's?
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, it is my
understanding that the lead sponsors of this bill in the Senate have
one that is much closer to my legislation, actually a little bit
stronger in its terms, and therefore the likelihood of this in
conference coming out closer to the terms of my amendment is much
greater, and it is my opinion that HUD would not recommend a veto of
this legislation simply because of this provision. So that politically
ours has the greatest chance of surviving and, in fact, does much more
for the employees and the manufactured housing industry.
Mr. STEARNS. Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by just reading a final
sentence from this letter that Nobility Homes sent to me. It says,
``The employees of our subsidiary, in addition, endorse this bill as
much better for the industry and for the consumer.''
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], a member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding me the time.
I want to especially express my appreciation to my friend, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert], who brought this amendment to
my attention in the first place. In our region in southern California,
manufactured housing is a very important employer and a great supplier.
A very, very significant percentage of the industry is from our region.
There is no question that the industry is going to thrive and survive
better if there is a consensus agreement. There is no doubt it is a
major employer in our region that provides first-time home opportunity
for many, many a family in southern California.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind's eye that the Mcintosh
amendment in its current form could be a killer amendment. On the other
hand, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] has indicated that the
Senate has a bill that is closer to him. So it is logical to have the
Calvert-Roemer amendment go forward so we have a reasonable discussion
in conference.
I urge the Members to vote against the McIntosh amendment and for the
Roemer amendment.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Vento], a very distinguished member of the committee and
a very, very hard-working Member of Congress.
Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I
rise in opposition to the McIntosh amendment and in favor of the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
The fact is that I think Mr. Roemer's amendment strikes policy of
consensus. The issue with McIntosh is that it cuts off the authority at
the local level to control manufactured housing and it cuts off the
ability of HUD to control manufactured housing at the other end, and so
obviously some manufacturing housing advocates or manufacturers think
that is the way to go. No big surprise. But that means it is not
controlled from the Federal side, it is not controlled locally, but who
does control it? We do have some responsibility.
I mean this is the dilemma we have had. We have got to leave some
balance in this policy, and I think that the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] strikes that balance. There is no
question about it, but there has been discrimination against this
manufactured housing based on regulatory and zoning policies. The way
to right that is to follow and pass the Roemer-Calvert amendment.
That's the best and positive proposal that has been hammered out and
deserves the support of the House.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I would conclude by saying that people across America
are asking us here in Congress to not say that regulations and 9-story
buildings with bureacrats are the answers to our problems. We do not do
that with this amendment. It is a consensus committee of consumers,
supported by the Secretary of HUD. It is supported by the manufactured
housing institute that
[[Page H4730]]
comprises about 70, 75 percent of the industry. It is strongly
supported by the consumer groups and the American Association of
Retired People.
Now, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] and the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis] and others, very distinguished members of the
Republican Party, have said that the McIntosh amendment will kill any
ability for this Roemer-Royce bipartisan bill to be signed into law.
We need to accomplish commonsense reform for our industry, for our
consumers, and for the sake of this country to compete in a global
environment. I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan Roemer-
Royce-Calvert-Vento amendment and defeat Mr. McIntosh's amendment.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining 3 minutes
of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, first let me commend my colleague from
New York for bringing this entire bill forward and the incredibly good
work that he and his committee have done, and let me assure him that
when my amendment is added to this bill, it will in no means make it
less likely that it is to be signed by the President.
The last time I checked, the consumer groups were not the ones
controlling the Senate or the conference and that in fact this
amendment is most likely to come through the Senate and the House
conference intact and survive in order to provide real relief for the
owners and purchasers of these manufactured housing.
Bottom line is, my amendment would put real teeth into regulatory
relief, would require common sense to be used by HUD in developing
standards for safe manufactured housing, would avoid the disastrous
regulations in the past that have increased the cost of this housing by
10, 20 percent at a leap, and would finally do something for working
men and women in this country who want a chance to have the American
dream, to afford their own home, many of them for the first time.
{time} 1645
We need to pass this amendment for their sake. Mr. Chairman, I
include for the Record a letter from Mr. Jim Shea, who lives in the
district of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer]. He indicated that
it is his belief that the proposed consensus committee in my
colleague's amendment would not improve the process, and might in fact
seriously set back the effort to have reasonable regulation.
I also include for the Record the letter referred to by the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Stearns] from Nobility Homes in Ocala, Florida.
The letters referred to are as follows:
Fairmont Homes, Inc.,
Nappanee, IN, May 3, 1996.
Hon. Timothy Roemer,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Roemer, I appreciated the time that your
legislative staff person, Ms. Katherine Graham, spent on the
phone with me this week regarding the proposed legislative
changes to the National Manufactured Home Construction and
Safety Standards Act that you may sponsor. I thought that
because of the length of our discussion, I should provide a
written summarization of the grave concerns that we, as well
as numerous other manufacturers, have with the proposed
legislative language.
consensus committee
As we recently discussed, the Industry has sought for some
time to gain the benefits of a good consensus committee
process to update the regulations on a reasonable basis.
Unfortunately, it is my belief that the proposed consensus
committee structure will result in no improvement in the
process, and may result in a serious setback to reasonable
regulation.
(1) I understand that consensus committee proposals would
be subject to rejection or modification if the Secretary
deems them to be ``inconsistent with the purposes of Title
VI.'' Ms. Graham stated that if the Secretary wanted to
modify a committee approved regulation, the modification
would have to go through rulemaking. While this is true as
far as it goes, upon further consideration of the proposed
legislation it is apparent that the Secretary, under section
604(6), could selectively reject portions of a proposed
regulation without ever engaging in notice and comment
rulemaking. Through such selective rejection of only portions
of a proposed standard, the Secretary could unilaterally
change the substance of an entire standard. In addition,
under section 604(8)(b), the Secretary is authorized to
circumvent the consensus process altogether, and issue his
own standards upon a finding of an emergency, or a finding
that ``the consensus committee will not make timely
recommendations.'' It is important to note that this
exception to consensus standards-development is phrased in
the disjunctive. Thus, the secretary could totally bypass the
consensus committee, even in the absence of an emergency, and
could preempt committee deliberations and debate over the
most controversial issues by the simple expedient of
declaring the committee incapable of rending a ``timely''
recommendation and forcing through a standard of his own
design.
(2) The new legislative language appears to totally remove
the current notice and comment requirements for
interpretative Bulletins. Ms. Graham said that the committee
would have full review of the Interpretative Bulletins before
issuance, but she was unsure if the Secretary would have to
go through rulemaking on the interpretative Bulletins. If the
Secretary chose to modify Interpretative Bulletin language as
it came out of the committee. I noted that the overreaching
use by HUD of Interpretative Bulletins in the past had
created great consternation in the industry and any system
that made it easier to make de facto changes in the
regulations through Interpetative Bulletins would be
totally unacceptable. In fact any change that is
undertaken should effectively eliminate the confusion and
extra costs caused by Interpretative Bulletins.
I have other general concerns over language relating to
consensus committee formation. One of the most important is
my understanding that the Secretary is not required to enter
into a contract with the administrative organization and
would therefore not be subject to administrative rules
regarding full and fair competition and that the Secretary
could replace the consensus committee administrative
organization upon a mere finding ``of need.'' Our research on
the contractor selection process revealed apparent unfairness
of monitoring contractor selection by HUD over the years.
Considering the problems we have seen in monitoring
contractor selection where HUD is supposedly constrained by
administrative rules regarding full and fair competition, it
is obvious there would be no fair process of administrator
selection and evaluation with the inadequate provisions of
the proposed legislation.
accountability
As I mentioned to Ms. Graham, any change in the Act must
increase the accountability of HUD for expenditures of fees,
and ensure that the formation of the consensus committee is
not used as a means for HUD to unreasonably raise fees or use
them for expanded purposes. A lack of accounting by HUD for
industry fee use has been a problem since the program's
inception. As you know, HUD has a historically poor record of
providing the annual reports to Congress on expenditures and
other aspects of the Federal program that are currently
required by the Act.
I asked Ms. Graham why the new language did not require the
application of the appropriation process to section 620 to
require HUD to properly account for expenditures both in the
consensus committee areas and in all areas. She said that
subjecting HUD to the appropriation process would result in
negatives for the industry, especially during budgetary
battles such as those experienced this past year. My sense is
that many other crucial areas of the government were impacted
by the budgetary impasse, yet continued to function
adequately. I don't see how it would be different for our
program.
Ms. Graham stated that it was her understanding that any
changes in fees would be subject to rulemaking, but I did not
find any language in the proposal that supports this
requirement.
preemption
As you know, HUD has, over recent years, reduced the
strength of its application of the preemptive language in the
Act. The preemptive language is very important for two
reasons:
(1) The language enables the cost effectiveness of
manufactured housing by permitting manufacturing
standardization. The efficiency of standardization is the
basis for our industry as the sole provider of affordable,
non-subsidized housing.
(2) Without preemption, the status of the Third District as
one of the top loci for the manufactured housing industry
would likely to come to an end, causing a severe impact on
employment in the district.
Ms. Graham responded that while she recognized the
importance of the preemption issue, there would likely be
great political difficulties with strengthening the
preemptive language in the Act this year. However, it is our
position that strengthening the language would only result in
a return to the level of federal preemption originally
envisioned by the sponsors of the 1974 Act.
Summarizing, we listened to your advice that we reduce the
scope of any reform to the Act this year due to the limited
legislative agenda this year. Hence, our expectations were
scaled back. However, we cannot endorse proposed legislation
that would effectively give HUD veto power over the
membership of the consensus committee; allow HUD to replace
the administering organization at will; allow HUD to
selectively veto discrete portions of proposed standards
without rulemaking; and, ultimately bypass the consensus
process itself. We believe any changes to the Act that do not
result in 1) a more effective regulatory process through a
properly structured consensus committee, 2) more
accountability by HUD for expenditures of fees in the
program, and 3) strengthening of preemptive language to
ensure the
[[Page H4731]]
protection of jobs in the Third District are not worthy of
your efforts.
Sincerely,
James F. Shea,
Executive Committee Chairman.
____
Nobility Homes, Inc,
Ocala, FL, May 9, 1996.
Dear Representatives Stearns: It is my understanding that
Representative McIntosh of Indiana will be introducing a
substitute amendment to the ``Roemer-Ryce'' Amendment on
manufactured housing.
All the employees of Nobility Homes, Inc. urge you to
support this amendment. Also, all the employees of our
subsidiary, Prestige Home Centers, Inc., the largest retailer
of manufactured home in Florida, with a sales center in your
district, urge you to support this amendment. It is much
better for the industry and the consumer.
Sincerely,
Terry Trexler,
President.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is good for all concerned. It brings
consumers and environmentalists to the table, it helps protect
consumers for the cost of unnecessary regulation. It allows us to go
forward in a commonsense way in developing safety regulations for
manufactured housing, America's best hope for affordable housing in
this country.
Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Roemer-Royce amendment to the U.S. Housing Act of 1996 (H.R. 2406).
This amendment establishes a consensus committee which will be
responsible for the revision and interpretation of Federal manufactured
housing construction and safety performance standards. This committee
will be made up of all interested parties including industry,
consumers, and government. This is an excellent opportunity to bring
common sense back to the regulatory process.
Manufactured housing is an important industry and a large employer in
my district in places like Woodland and Chehalis. This industry
fulfills a vital need for people who want to live the American dream of
home ownership. Unfortunately, onerous regulatory requirements have
precluded some from achieving this dream. I support the amendment
because it takes a significant step toward providing regulatory relief
for the Federal manufactured housing program. Moreover, by removing
these regulatory burdens we will increase the availability of
affordable housing.
I urge my colleagues to support manufactured housing and to support
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired. The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] as a substitute
for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
The amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments to the bill?
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, proceedings will now resume on
those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the
following order: Amendments offered by the gentlewoman from New York
[Ms. Velazquez], and an amendment offered by the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
Amendments Offered by Ms. VELAZQUEZ
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendments offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Ms.
Velazquez] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendments.
The Clerk redesignated the amendments.
recorded vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair points out pursuant to House Resolution 426
the next vote in this series will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 126,
noes 297, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 157]
AYES--126
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Durbin
Engel
Evans
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kleczka
LaFalce
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Mink
Moakley
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Rivers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--297
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--10
Bevill
English
Houghton
Laughlin
Molinari
Paxon
Schroeder
Smith (TX)
Torricelli
Weldon (PA)
{time} 1707
Mr. KASICH and Ms. ESHOO changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. MARKEY and Mr. MATSUI changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
[[Page H4732]]
So the amendments were rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mr. durbin
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] 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 CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 106,
noes 318, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 158]
AYES--106
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Berman
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Coleman
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis
DeLauro
Dellums
Dicks
Doggett
Dunn
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Furse
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hinchey
Horn
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
LaFalce
Lantos
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martini
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Moakley
Moran
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Porter
Quinn
Reed
Regula
Rivers
Rose
Sawyer
Schumer
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Torres
Towns
Ward
Waxman
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer
NOES--318
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meek
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--9
Bevill
Houghton
Laughlin
Molinari
Paxon
Schroeder
Smith (TX)
Torricelli
Weldon (PA)
{time} 1718
Messrs. RANGEL, UPTON, HASTINGS of Florida, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, and Mrs.
COLLINS of Illinois changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. BALDACCI changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today because I have
some real concerns about how the Republican majority of this body treat
those of our citizens who are most vulnerable.
H.R. 2406 the United States Housing Act of 1995 in its final form
will repeal the Brooke amendment which established a flat rent of 30
percent of income for residents of all public housing and assisted
housing. This provision protected the most vulnerable residents of
public housing and later those with Section 8 assistance from paying
too high a percentage of their income in rent.
This bill will establish minimum rents of $25 to $50 a month without
any consideration of a family's income. In my State of Texas, the
impact would be felt by 33,949 poor families who will have to pay more
for a place to call home.
H.R. 2406 will also give housing authorities the power to demolish
apartments without any consideration for the residents or their rights.
In my district, the residents of the Allen Parkway Village have been
completely removed from the decision making process by local public
housing authority which may have been too emersed in its day-to-day
operation to remember that their policy affects real people.
I have consistently argued that the residents of public housing must
be involved in any plan to rehabilitate or demolish their homes.
Residents must also be given the opportunity to contest the actions of
a housing authority through due process with an adequate appeals
procedure.
Having a place to call home, no matter how modest, is a cornerstone
of the American Dream, it is the goal of every family.
Do we suspend the right to life, liberty and property because an
individual earns the minimum wage or less? The Federal Government
created and supports an affordable public housing program because there
is a need. The current supply of housing is clearly deficient when we
consider the thousands of homeless families that inhabit shelters in
our Nation.
Today, we should be codifying the American Dream, making it a right
for all of our country's families to have access to an affordable place
to call home. It would be the right thing to do and it is what the
American people deserve.
Does this body consider an individual's opinion of no value or their
voice silent if they are poor and reside in public housing. A home is
not just a place to live it is also a place where people should and
must have a voice. For residents of Allen Parkway Village in Houston,
TX, what we do here today is very relevant and very real to their
democratic rights as residents of public housing.
Citizens of this country no matter what their economic standing must
have a right to be heard and to have due process. It is a shame that
the Republican majority brought this piece of legislation before the
House for consideration without insuring that these rights were
guaranteed to the residents of public housing.
Do we not want to maintain a reliable supply of affordable housing
for our Nation's poor? I believe we do, the Houston Housing Authority
has several fine examples of providing good housing for Houstonians.
More can be done including the providing of affordable housing for low-
income citizens; however total abdication of Federal responsibility in
public housing is clearly unwise.
The Congress should not in its shortsightedness or insensitivity
toward the poor, in public
[[Page H4733]]
housing policy making, create one additional homeless family.
When you are the poor of the poor, then you have a perspective that
few of us in this chamber have ever known or will know. That should
not, however, stop us from having common sense or compassion about what
is fair or what is right.
I would caution us before this vote with a metaphor using words from
Langston's Hughe's poem, ``As I Grew Older''.
It was a long time ago. I have almost forgotten my dream.
But it was there then, In front of me, Bright like a sun--My
dream. And then the wall rose, Rose slowly, Slowly, Between
me and my dream. Rose slowly, slowly, Dimming, Hiding, The
light of my dream. Rose until it touched the sky--
The wall is the legislation we pass that affect the poor and the
dream is affordable housing.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my serious
reservations about the elimination of the service coordinators
authorization under H.R. 2406, the U.S. Housing Act.
The service coordinators program was established in 1992 in response
to a desperate need in our Nation's public housing. At that time,
elderly and disabled residents were being placed into public housing
together. The differences between the needs and lifestyles of these two
populations were leading to fear and distrust. In a few cases, violence
even broke out.
To help ease these tensions and ensure that all residents were
receiving the medical, psychological, social and other services they
needed, we developed the service coordinators program. When the grant
was first announced, competition for these funds was intense. Cities
all across the Nation recognized that this program would allow them to
address resident issues in a coordinated, comprehensive manner.
This program has accomplished a tremendous amount at a very low cost.
In my hometown of Milwaukee, there has been a sea change in the
atmosphere at public housing complexes where service coordinators were
sent. Our local paper, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, reported that
originally, ``the only older people living in Milwaukee's public
housing towers were those who had no other options.'' However, after
service coordinators were established, ``Within months, the social
workers and nurses * * * had made major inroads in easing tensions,
helping residents get to know one another and linking those who were
sick or abusing alcohol or drugs to the help they needed.''
I am deeply concerned that the block grant established under H.R.
2406 will force housing authorities to make difficult funding choices
that will result in the elimination of service coordinators. Too often,
social services cannot compete against needs like housing repairs and
operating costs. It would be truly tragic if the programs we have made
is erased simply because the funding stream is eliminated. We know what
the problem has been, and we have designed a solution that works. It
troubles me deeply that this bill may effectively destroy that
solution, and all the hard-won advancements in mixed population
housing.
Mr. Speaker, if service coordinators are eliminated, I will be
watching closely to determine whether the sort of backsliding I have
described occurs in the future. It if does, you may be certain that I
will propose reinstating this critical program.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2406,
the ``United States Housing Act of 1996.''
How many times have you heard visitors from foreign counties express
their astonishment at the wealth gap between individuals in this
country living within the same communities. They see slums a quarter of
a mile away from mansions. They see the homeless panhandling in front
of luxury hotels. They see a husband and wife with their two children
standing at a freeway entrance holding a sigh that says ``Homeless-will
work for food,'' as a $50,000 sports car goes by.
It it one thing to want all the riches of the world, but for many it
is a struggle just to provide a home for their family. Is that too much
to ask? What happened to the American dream? Everyone in Congress
claims to be sympathetic to those in need of housing assistance, still,
H.R. 2406 makes changes contrary to what I believe to be our public
housing assistance goals. Low-income individuals should not be forced
to decide between rent for housing and other primary needs.
H.R. 2406 establishes a minimum rent requirement eliminating current
standards which cap tenant rents to 30 percent of adjusted gross
income. All public housing assistance recipients would be required to
pay at least $25 per month. The result would be that vulnerable, very
low-income tenants will be required to contribute a large percentage of
their incomes to rents.
Proponents of this bill argue that the minimum rent level is meager,
however, for someone who makes minimum wage and earns less than $9,000
per year, $300 is a big chunk of income. It is even more frightening
for someone dependent on Social Security. What does this new charge
mean to them? What does it mean to the disabled? What does this mean to
their children?
I believe this proposal could send vulnerable low-income tenants into
the street. I urge that the minimum rent level be removed and that the
current 30 percent of adjusted income cap for rents be maintained.
Additionally, this bill eliminates regulations that directs public
housing assistance to the most vulnerable. H.R. 2406 does not reserve
any Section 8 assistance for very low-income families. Moreover, it
only requires 25 percent of public housing units to be reserved for the
very low-income families as compared to current standards requiring 85
percent. I believe the very low-income should be a principal concern
and we should be cautious to allocate scarce resources to those with
minimal need.
I sincerely believe that all of us in Congress have compassion for
those who lack adequate housing. I believe we all care about low-income
families and the homeless.
I do not, however, believe dumping responsibility on States in the
form of Block Grants is the solution; nor is removing regulations that
direct assistance to very low-income families; nor is requiring very
low-income tenants to pay minimum rents, forcing many to choose between
health, food or rent.
Reform of the Department of Housing and Urban Development is
necessary, but H.R. 2406 misses the mark, ignoring our obligation to
the most vulnerable populations while unloading the Federal burden by
dumping it on the States. This is not the policy that we should be
pursuing.
Visitors from other countries are astonished to see the contrast in
housing conditions between the rich and the poor in the United States.
Why aren't we? I know the Federal Government doesn't have all the
answers, but neither do the States. Therefore, the Federal Government
must continue to play a significant role in insuring that housing needs
of our country are met. We must work together to make the most
efficient use of our resources and I sincerely do not believe this bill
does that.
Unless drastic changes are made to H.R. 2406, I urge a ``no'' vote on
this bill.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, every day my constituents remind me of the
difficulty they have with making ends meet. And while $50 may not be
much to you, but it is a lot for many of my constituents living in
public housing.
It has been estimated that 5.3 million low-income households are
either spending more than half their incomes on rent or living in
extremely substandard housing. This figure is expected to dramatically
increase if the Velazquez amendment is not accepted.
I understand that the rent increase is intended to encourage personal
responsibility. But I wish someone would tell me how a 70-year-old
senior citizen or a 73-year-old Air Force veteran is going to be taught
personal responsibility. I believe they know what responsibility is and
many of them have lived and survived in situations that many of us
could not imagine living through.
This bill presupposes that the average public housing resident has
extra money for rent. We are talking about people who have been
displaced from their jobs, who have been homeless, who are single
parents with young children and cannot afford child care and therefore
cannot work a minimum wage job. People who are disabled, perhaps on
dialysis, or who have suffered a stroke, simply cannot afford to pay
higher rent. We are talking about truly needy families who do not want
to be in the situation in which they find themselves in.
While I understand compassion is something this Congress is often not
able to express. We want all Americans to pick themselves up by their
own bootstraps when they don't even have boots. We must not forget that
welfare, Medicaid and several other programs to help the needy are
already on the chopping block. We cannot throw people out on the
streets because they happen to be poor.
I urge my colleagues to protect the housing for seniors with limited
incomes, former homeless families with no income and large families
receiving AFDC benefits. I urge the adoption of the Velazquez
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments to the bill?
If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gunderson, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having
[[Page H4734]]
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,
pursuant to House Resolution 426, he reported the bill back to the
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole?
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on the Maloney
amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any other
amendment?
The Clerk will report the amendment on which a separate vote has been
demanded.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment: 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).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 375,
noes, 48, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 159]
AYES--375
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Bachus
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--48
Archer
Armey
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Bateman
Bonilla
Callahan
Campbell
Collins (GA)
Cox
DeLay
Doolittle
Ehlers
Gilchrest
Hancock
Hansen
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
King
Largent
Lazio
Livingston
Lucas
McCrery
Moran
Neumann
Orton
Pombo
Rohrabacher
Roth
Sanford
Scarborough
Shadegg
Shuster
Smith (MI)
Souder
Stump
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Walker
Watts (OK)
White
NOT VOTING--10
Bevill
Dickey
Hastert
Laughlin
Molinari
Paxon
Schroeder
Tanner
Torricelli
Weldon (PA)
{time} 1740
Mr. WHITE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. WAMP and Mr. FUNDERBURK changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
motion to recommit offered by Mr. kennedy of massachusetts
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts moves to recommit the bill,
H.R. 2406, to the Committee on Banking and Financial
Services, with instructions to report the same back to the
House forthwith with the following amendments:
In Section 225(a) of the bill (as amended by the manager's
amendment), after paragraph (2) insert the following new
paragraph:
(3) 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 has an
annual income which is principally derived from earned
income.
[[Page H4735]]
In Section 322(a) of the bill (as amended by the manager's
amendment), after paragraph (2) insert the following new
paragraph:
(3) Exceptions.--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 has an annual
income which is principally derived from earned income.
Any amount payable under paragraph (4) shall be in addition
to the amount payable under this paragraph.
In section 352(a)(2) of the bill (as amended by the
manager's amendment), after ``paragraph (2)'' insert ``or
(3)''.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to recommit be
considered as read and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], my friend for the efforts that he
has made on this bill. I want to thank the gentleman in particular for
the extensions that he has made to the Brooke amendment.
Under the bill the way we are about to vote on it, we will have
protected our senior citizens and elderly.
{time} 1745
Mr. Speaker, under the way this bill is about to be voted on, with
the amendments that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] has
accepted, we will be protecting our elderly, our senior citizens, that
live in public housing and that gain access to tenant based vouchers
with the Brooke amendment. We have extended that to disabled people. We
have extended that to our Nation's veterans.
The one group of people that we have not extended the Brooke
protections to are the very people that the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity suggests that the
Brooke amendment is going to most hurt. That is the working poor of
this country. They are the individuals that under the arguments that we
have heard over the course of the last 24 hours have a disincentive,
that is to go to work, that is put into place by the Brooke amendment.
However, because of all of the protections that we have placed into
the Brooke amendment, the only people that we can now raise rents on
are, in fact, the working poor. So we have this perverse situation
where we have created an enormous disincentive, an even larger
disincentive to work under the notions put forward by the Republicans
in this bill.
We have a perverse situation where the very individuals that all of
us in this Chamber have voiced the greatest concern about in terms of
their ability to go out and work and the disincentives that we
sometimes inadvertently put into law that creates these weird
circumstances where they are no longer incentivized to work but are
incentivized to stay on the Government dole are in fact created by
virtue of the exemptions that we have placed in this bill. So what has
occurred is, in fact, an enormous rent increase.
It will not be linked to a percentage of income, but I do not know
anyone that worries about whether or not their rent increase occurs
because it is a percentage of income or just because the landlord
jacked up the rent. But nevertheless, what we got here is a rent
increase of substantial proportions on the very individuals that
everyone in this House is looking to protect and to create incentives
to have them go out and work for a living.
This motion to recommit would extend the Brooke protections to the
working poor that work for a living, that live in public housing, that
use tenant based couchers and say that they cannot inadvertently have
their rents jacked up because of the maneuvers that end up being
created perversely by this legislation that will inadvertently jack up
their rents.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this very carefully drawn
recommit says, if a majority of your income comes from work, you will
get the same cap that welfare recipients get. We will be creating, if
we reject this, precisely the disincentive my colleagues said they did
not want.
Remember, under this recommit there is no floor. If a housing
authority does not want to go up to 30 percent, it does not have to. So
the gentleman from New York's argument comes down to this: If you tell
a housing authority it cannot charge a working person more than 30
percent of income, they will wind up paying more rent than if you tell
the housing authority they can charge an unlimited amount of income.
That is the difference.
We are saying, if you are working, 30 percent is the maximum. There
is no minimum. It is whatever the housing authority wants to set.
The gentleman from New York says, no, we must protect these working
people. Let us let the housing authority charge them whatever they
want. What we will get is the people on welfare will be protected by a
30-percent cap, and people who are working will not be protected.
Steve Forbes, where are you when we need you to make rational housing
policy? Why do my colleagues want to say that working people will be
treated not only in dollar amounts more but qualitatively more? This
amendment does what the gentleman may have set out to do. And it is
true, housing authorities will tell you, no, we need the money. If you
vote no, you are voting to let the local bureaucratic people who run
the housing authorities get more money out of working people without
limit. If they get a shortfall, they will have one place to go. They
will be able to raise the rents not on the disabled people, not on the
welfare recipients, they will be able to raise the rents on the working
people. If they do not want to raise the rents, they will not have to.
Nothing in here forces them.
The gentleman from New York says trust the local authorities, but
apparently he does not trust them because he says, if you put a 30
percent, they are too stupid to know that 30 percent up here does not
mean you cannot be below 30 percent. If you really think they cannot
tell the difference, then protect these people.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following
article on the Brooke amendment:
[From the Boston Globe, May 8, 1996]
Save the Brooke Amendment
(By Edward W. Brooke)
(27 years ago, we passed a law to keep rents affordable in public
housing--we still need it today.)
As a young man starting out on my own, my father taught me
that if I was paying more than 25 percent of my income on
rent, I was paying more than I could afford and should find
another place to live. It was sound advice then, and it is
sound advice today.
Too much spent on housing leaves a person juggling to pay
for other essentials, robbing Peter to pay Paul, with no
ability to save for the future.
Twenty-seven years ago as a Republican US senator from
Massachusetts, I introduced the ``Brooke Amendment'' to keep
rents affordable for low-income families, elders, veterans
and disabled people living in public housing. Then, as now,
public housing authorities faced increasing operating
expenses and, in order to cover costs, were charging tenants
higher and higher rents--in some cases upwards of 50 percent
of their meager incomes.
Congress had two choices: fill the operating-cost gap or
turn people out of their homes. We voted to fill the gap and
passed legislation, signed into law by President Nixon in
1969, to cap rent at 25 percent of income. In 1981, this cap
was raised to 30 percent.
Now, US Rep. Rick Lazio, a Republican from New York and
chairman of the housing subcommittee, is expected to bring to
the full House a bill that calls for the elimination of the
Brooke Amendment. It will put 2.7 million households in
danger of losing the rent-cap safeguard in their federally
subsidized housing. The rationale for repealing the Brooke
Amendment is that, to fill the current revenue gap, housing
authorities need to attract working people who can pay higher
rents into public housing. The 30-percent cap is seen as a
disincentive for residents to obtain work.
The purpose of public housing is to provide decent,
affordable housing for low-income families, and the Brooke
Amendment has ensured that for almost 30 years.
However, a specious argument has caught hold in Congress
that people who have jobs and more choices will choose to
move into public housing developments where apartments are
cramped, safety is often a problem
[[Page H4736]]
and one is branded with the stigma of living in a poor
development. Do members of Congress really believe that
people who have the means to live elsewhere will move into
public housing projects? The reality is that people live in
public housing because they have no other choice; they are
poor and have no other place to go.
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 and allow
people to save and get back on their feet. 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. We must keep rents in
public housing at a fair and reasonable percentage of income,
a percentage that recognizes that people need money to pay
for other basic expenses as well.
Some advocates of the repeal cite the rate of crime in
public housing. The fact is that less than 15 percent of
public housing tenants are involved in crime. More than 85
percent are decent, law-abiding citizens who live in fear of
crime. The way to address the crime problem is not repeal of
the cap on rents, but through eviction and prosecution of
criminal tenants.
I fear that the real intention in repealing the Brooke
Amendment is to abandon federal public housing. This
misguided and hard-edged legislative action will destroy the
foundation of our federal housing policy.
Abandoning public housing is unwise for the country. It
ignores the investment that this country has already made to
build millions of units of housing--housing that, if we had
to rebuild today, would be prohibitive in cost.
The Brooke Amendment is not a budget buster. Last year, the
federal government provided $2.9 billion to agencies that run
public housing. This figure was dwarfed by the $56.3 billion
in mortgage interest deductions that reduce housing costs for
middle-and upper-income people. There is clearly no fairness
or equity in the allocations between the haves and the have-
nots.
There comes a point in making policy decisions when
compassion and common sense must dictate. I respectfully urge
my Republican successors in Congress to preserve the Brooke
Amendment.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the full chairman of the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the gentleman from Iowa
[Mr. Leach], for his support and friendship. I want to thank the
members of my subcommittee, especially the people who have been at my
side in handling the debate, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Baker],
the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], the vice chairman of the
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development. I want to thank the
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], the gentleman from Arizona [Mr.
Hayworth], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller], on and on.
I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] for
his cooperation, the ability to work together on a number of different
items.
Mr. Speaker, this moment culminates 2 days of debate about two
different visions of America. The first vision is the vision at my
left. It is the state of public housing in America.
Mr. Speaker, 200,000 Americans live in public housing that is run by
corrupt, dysfunctional, mismanaged housing authorities. And the other
side defends this. They think that this is acceptable, that it is OK in
America to have communities where 200,000 Americans live in this
despair, without hope or opportunity.
We do not accept that. These housing authorities, let me just talk
about some of these housing authorities. Think about if your children
went to school and they came back with test scores, not for 1 year or 2
years or 3 years or 5 years but for 17 years out of 100. New Orleans is
scoring 27. Can you imagine if your children came back with a score of
27 year after year? Condemning the population, the people that we are
supposed to serve, to poverty. District of Columbia, 33; Philadelphia,
35; Detroit, 37; Pittsburgh, 47; Atlanta, 49.
And let me tell my colleagues something, this is what HUD is bragging
about. They gave me this piece of paper because they think this is
good. I think it stinks. I think we should not accept it. I think we
should say that the people deserve more, that we should fire these
housing authorities that continue to do a poor job year-after-year
while billions of taxpayer dollars pour into them.
This is the future of America. We have two different visions. Claim
the past, which is this vision, or give the children who live in public
housing hope. Give them a chance. Give them a chance to live in a place
where they can have a fireman or a policeman living next door. Give
them a chance where somebody can come over for a cup of coffee, talk
about a job that might be available in the place that they work,
instead of a place like State Street, where you have 10,000 people
warehoused because of the policies of the last few Congresses, an
unemployment rate of 99 percent.
Talk about despair. Talk about disgrace. Talk about lack of
compassion. That is a lack of compassion. To defend the status quo, to
say that that is acceptable. It is not acceptable in America. It is
acceptable nowhere in America.
Now what they are talking about is maintaining one of the most
important disincentives to work, the Brooke amendment, which has
punished people who want to get out of poverty, want to take the
opportunity to walk down that path toward employment. It says the
minute you go to work, you pay a 30-percent tax. it says that you
cannot live under the same rules, if you live in public housing, all of
us live under.
Let us consider ourselves here. How would we all like to pay a 30-
percent rent on our income? What kind of an artificial bizarre world
sets rent based on how much income you make so that the minute you go
to work, if you are to take overtime or get a better job or help
yourself up the ladder or it you want your other spouse to go to work,
the minute that happens, you get penalized, your rent goes up?
What we are saying is, set flat rents that help incentivize work. Mr.
Speaker, what we are talking about is fundamental local control, about
reclaiming our communities and getting Washington bureaucrats and their
one-size-fits-all-20-page-pet regulatory model out of our community so
they can do their own job.
Let me tell you about the people who have hands-on experience, Mr.
Speaker, the people from the housing authorities themselves and what
they say.
The Public Housing Authorities Directors Association says, this
legislation would permit badly needed flexibility that PHAs need to
move residents up the ladder of self-sufficiency. We strongly support
the provisions that would allow for working families flexible ceiling
rents that would allow working residents to remain in public housing.
I urge a ``no'' vote for the future of the children in public
housing.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the motion
to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 passage of the bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196,
noes 226, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 160]
AYES--196
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Frisa
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
[[Page H4737]]
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Horn
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
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
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
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walsh
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--226
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
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
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
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
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--11
Bevill
Dickey
Dicks
Ewing
Laughlin
Molinari
Paxon
Schroeder
Tanner
Torricelli
Weldon (PA)
{time} 1814
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Tanner for, with Mr. Paxon against.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania and Mr. BLUTE changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, on Rollcall No. 160, my card failed to
register my vote. I intended to be recorded ``No.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the passage
of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 315,
noes 107, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 161]
AYES--315
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clayton
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--107
Abercrombie
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Blute
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (FL)
Bryant (TX)
Clay
Clement
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Engel
Evans
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kleczka
LaFalce
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Maloney
Manton
Markey
McDermott
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
[[Page H4738]]
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Scarborough
Serrano
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Thompson
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey
Yates
NOT VOTING--11
Bachus
Bevill
Dickey
Laughlin
Molinari
Paxon
Royce
Schroeder
Tanner
Torricelli
Weldon (PA)
{time} 1823
Messrs. DEUTSCH, DICKS, and COSTELLO changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Mr. CLYBURN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of House
Resolution 426, I call up from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S.
1260) to reform and consolidate the public and assisted housing
programs of the United States, and to redirect primary responsibility
for these programs from the Federal Government to States and
localities, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The text of S. 1260 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; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Public
Housing Reform and Empowerment Act of 1996''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Effective date.
Sec. 5. Proposed regulations; technical recommendations.
Sec. 6. Elimination of obsolete documents.
Sec. 7. Annual reports.
TITLE I--PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING
Sec. 101. Declaration of policy.
Sec. 102. Membership on board of directors.
Sec. 103. Authority of public housing agencies.
Sec. 104. Definitions.
Sec. 105. Contributions for lower income housing projects.
Sec. 106. Public housing agency plan.
Sec. 107. Contract provisions and requirements.
Sec. 108. Expansion of powers.
Sec. 109. Public housing designated for the elderly and the disabled.
Sec. 110. Public housing capital and operating funds.
Sec. 111. Labor standards.
Sec. 112. Repeal of energy conservation; consortia and joint ventures.
Sec. 113. Repeal of modernization fund.
Sec. 114. Eligibility for public and assisted housing.
Sec. 115. Demolition and disposition of public housing.
Sec. 116. Repeal of family investment centers; voucher system for
public housing.
Sec. 117. Repeal of family self-sufficiency; homeownership
opportunities.
Sec. 118. Revitalizing severely distressed public housing.
Sec. 119. Mixed-income and mixed-ownership projects.
Sec. 120. Conversion of distressed public housing to tenant-based
assistance.
Sec. 121. Public housing mortgages and security interests.
Sec. 122. Linking services to public housing residents.
Sec. 123. Applicability to Indian housing.
TITLE II--SECTION 8 RENTAL ASSISTANCE
Sec. 201. Merger of the certificate and voucher programs.
Sec. 202. Repeal of Federal preferences.
Sec. 203. Portability.
Sec. 204. Leasing to voucher holders.
Sec. 205. Homeownership option.
Sec. 206. Technical and conforming amendments.
Sec. 207. Implementation.
Sec. 208. Definition.
Sec. 209. Effective date.
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Public housing flexibility in the CHAS.
Sec. 302. Repeal of certain provisions.
Sec. 303. Determination of income limits.
Sec. 304. Demolition of public housing.
Sec. 305. Coordination of tax credits and section 8.
Sec. 306. Eligibility for public and assisted housing.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) there exists throughout the Nation a need for decent,
safe, and affordable housing;
(2) the inventory of public housing units owned and
operated by public housing agencies, an asset in which the
Federal Government has invested approximately
$90,000,000,000, has traditionally provided rental housing
that is affordable to low-income persons;
(3) despite serving this critical function, the public
housing system is plagued by a series of problems, including
the concentration of very poor people in very poor
neighborhoods and disincentives for economic self-
sufficiency;
(4) the Federal method of overseeing every aspect of public
housing by detailed and complex statutes and regulations
aggravates the problem and places excessive administrative
burdens on public housing agencies;
(5) the interests of low-income persons, and the public
interest, will best be served by a reformed public housing
program that--
(A) consolidates many public housing programs into programs
for the operation and capital needs of public housing;
(B) streamlines program requirements;
(C) vests in public housing agencies that perform well the
maximum feasible authority, discretion, and control with
appropriate accountability to both public housing tenants and
localities; and
(D) rewards employment and economic self-sufficiency of
public housing tenants;
(6) voucher and certificate programs under section 8 of the
United States Housing Act of 1937 are successful for
approximately 80 percent of applicants, and a consolidation
of the voucher and certificate programs into a single,
market-driven program will assist in making section 8 tenant-
based assistance more successful in assisting low-income
families in obtaining affordable housing and will increase
housing choice for low-income families; and
(7) the needs of Indian families residing on Indian
reservations and other Indian areas will best be served by
providing programs specifically designed to meet the needs of
Indian communities while promoting tribal self-governance and
self-determination.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to consolidate the various programs and activities
under the public housing programs administered by the
Secretary in a manner designed to reduce Federal
overregulation;
(2) to redirect the responsibility for a consolidated
program to States, Indian tribes, localities, public housing
agencies, and public housing tenants;
(3) to require Federal action to overcome problems of
public housing agencies with severe management deficiencies;
and
(4) to consolidate and streamline tenant-based assistance
programs.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall
apply:
(1) Public housing agency.--The term ``public housing
agency'' has the same meaning as in section 3 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development.
SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Act or
the amendments made by this Act, this Act and the amendments
made by this Act shall become effective on the date of
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. PROPOSED REGULATIONS; TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS.
(a) Proposed Regulations.--Not later than 9 months after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit
to the Congress proposed regulations that the Secretary
determines are necessary to carry out the United States
Housing Act of 1937, as amended by this Act.
(b) Technical Recommendations.--Not later than 9 months
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
submit to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services of the House of Representatives,
recommended technical and conforming legislative changes
necessary to carry out this Act and the amendments made by
this Act.
SEC. 6. ELIMINATION OF OBSOLETE DOCUMENTS.
Effective 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act,
no rule, regulation, or order (including all handbooks,
notices, and related requirements) pertaining to public
housing or section 8 tenant-based programs issued or
promulgated under the United States Housing Act of 1937
before the date of enactment of this Act may be enforced by
the Secretary.
SEC. 7. ANNUAL REPORTS.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit a
report to the Congress on the impact of the amendments made
by this Act on--
(1) the demographics of public housing tenants and families
receiving tenant-based assistance under the United States
Housing Act of 1937; and
(2) the economic viability of public housing agencies.
TITLE I--PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING
SEC. 101. DECLARATION OF POLICY.
Section 2 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF POLICY.
``It is the policy of the United States to promote the
general welfare of the Nation by
[[Page H4739]]
employing the funds and credit of the Nation, as provided in
this title--
``(1) to assist States, Indian tribes, and political
subdivisions of States to remedy the unsafe housing
conditions and the acute shortage of decent and safe
dwellings for low-income families;
``(2) to assist States, Indian tribes, and political
subdivisions of States to address the shortage of housing
affordable to low-income families; and
``(3) consistent with the objectives of this title, to vest
in public housing agencies that perform well, the maximum
amount of responsibility and flexibility in program
administration, with appropriate accountability to both
public housing tenants and localities.''.
SEC. 102. MEMBERSHIP ON BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
Title I of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C.
1437 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``SEC. 27. MEMBERSHIP ON BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
``(a) Required Membership.--Except as provided in
subsection (b), the membership of the board of directors of
each public housing agency shall contain not less than 1
member who is a resident of a public housing project operated
by the public housing agency.
``(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any
public housing agency in any State that requires the members
of the board of directors of a public housing agency to be
salaried and to serve on a full-time basis.
``(c) Nondiscrimination.--No person shall be prohibited
from serving on the board of directors or similar governing
body of a public housing agency because of the residence of
that person in a public housing project.''.
SEC. 103. AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCIES.
(a) Authority of Public Housing Agencies.--
(1) In general.--Section 3(a)(2) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(a)(2)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(2) Authority of public housing agencies.--
Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a public housing agency may
adopt ceiling rents that reflect the reasonable market value
of the housing, but that are not less than the actual monthly
costs--
``(i) to operate the housing of the public housing agency;
and
``(ii) to make a deposit to a replacement reserve (in the
sole discretion of the public housing agency).
``(B) Minimum rent.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a
public housing agency may provide that each family residing
in a public housing project or receiving tenant-based or
project-based assistance under section 8 shall pay a minimum
monthly rent in an amount not to exceed $25 per month.
``(C) Police officers.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a public housing agency may, in accordance with the
public housing agency plan, allow a police officer who is not
otherwise eligible for residence in public housing to reside
in a public housing unit. The number and location of units
occupied by police officers under this clause, and the terms
and conditions of their tenancies, shall be determined by the
public housing agency.
``(ii) Definition.--As used in this subparagraph, the term
`police officer' means any person determined by a public
housing agency to be, during the period of residence of that
person in public housing, employed on a full-time basis as a
duly licensed professional police officer by a Federal,
State, tribal, or local government or by any agency thereof
(including a public housing agency having an accredited
police force).
``(D) Encouragement of self-sufficiency.--Each public
housing agency shall develop a rental policy that encourages
and rewards employment and economic self-sufficiency.''.
(2) Regulations.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall, by regulation, after
notice and an opportunity for public comment, establish such
requirements as may be necessary to carry out section
3(a)(2)(A) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as
amended by paragraph (1).
(B) Transition rule.--Prior to the issuance of final
regulations under paragraph (1), a public housing agency may
implement ceiling rents, which shall be--
(i) determined in accordance with section 3(a)(2)(A) of the
United States Housing Act of 1937, as that section existed on
the day before the date of enactment of this Act;
(ii) equal to the 95th percentile of the rent paid for a
unit of comparable size by tenants in the same public housing
project or a group of comparable projects totaling 50 units
or more; or
(iii) equal to the fair market rent for the area in which
the unit is located.
(b) Nontroubled Public Housing Agencies.--Section 3(a) of
the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Nontroubled public housing agencies.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding the rent calculation
formula in paragraph (1), and subject to subparagraph (B),
the Secretary shall permit a public housing agency, other
than a public housing agency determined to be troubled
pursuant to 6(j), to determine the amount that a family
residing in public housing shall pay as rent.
``(B) Limitation.--With respect to a family whose income is
equal to or less than 50 percent of the median income for the
area, as determined by the Secretary with adjustments for
smaller and larger families, a public housing agency may not
require a family to pay as rent under subparagraph (A) an
amount that exceeds the greatest of--
``(i) 30 percent of the monthly adjusted income of the
family;
``(ii) 10 percent of the monthly income of the family;
``(iii) if the family is receiving payments for welfare
assistance from a public agency and a part of those payments,
adjusted in accordance with the actual housing costs of the
family, is specifically designated by that public agency to
meet the housing costs of the family, the portion of those
payments that is so designated; and
``(iv) $25.''.
SEC. 104. DEFINITIONS.
(a) Definitions.--
(1) Single persons.--Section 3(b)(3) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)(3)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A), in the third sentence, by striking
``the Secretary shall'' and all that follows before the
period at the end and inserting the following: ``the public
housing agency may give preference to single persons who are
elderly or disabled persons before single persons who are
otherwise eligible''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), in the second sentence, by
striking ``regulations of the Secretary'' and inserting
``public housing agency plan''.
(2) Adjusted income.--Section 3(b)(5) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)(5)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(5) Adjusted income.--The term `adjusted income' means
the income that remains after excluding--
``(A) $480 for each member of the family residing in the
household (other than the head of the household or the spouse
of the head of the household)--
``(i) who is under 18 years of age; or
``(ii) who is--
``(I) 18 years of age or older; and
``(II) a person with disabilities or a full-time student;
``(B) $400 for an elderly or disabled family;
``(C) the amount by which the aggregate of--
``(i) medical expenses for an elderly or disabled family;
and
``(ii) reasonable attendant care and auxiliary apparatus
expenses for each family member who is a person with
disabilities, to the extent necessary to enable any member of
the family (including a member who is a person with
disabilities) to be employed;
exceeds 3 percent of the annual income of the family;
``(D) child care expenses, to the extent necessary to
enable another member of the family to be employed or to
further his or her education;
``(E) with respect to a family assisted by an Indian
housing authority only, excessive travel expenses, not to
exceed $25 per family per week, for employment- or education-
related travel; and
``(F) any other income that the public housing agency
determines to be appropriate, as provided in the public
housing agency plan.''.
(3) Indian housing authority; indian tribe.--
(A) In general.--Section 3(b) of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)) is amended by striking
paragraphs (11) and (12) and inserting the following:
``(11) Indian housing authority.--The term `Indian housing
authority' means any entity that--
``(A) is authorized to engage or assist in the development
or operation of low-income housing for Indians; 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 authorizing or enabling an
Indian tribe to create housing authorities for Indians,
including regional housing authorities in the State of
Alaska.
``(12) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' means the
governing body of any Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band,
nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of
the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian Tribe,
pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of
1994.''.
(B) Applicability.--The amendment made by subparagraph (A)
does not affect the existence, or the ability to operate, of
any Indian housing authority established before the date of
enactment of this Act by any State recognized tribe, band,
pueblo, group, community, or nation of Indians or Alaska
Natives that does not qualify as an Indian tribe under
section 3(b) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as
amended by this paragraph.
(b) Disallowance of Earned Income From Public Housing Rent
Determinations.--
(1) In general.--Section 3 of the United States Housing Act
of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a) is amended--
(A) by striking the undesignated paragraph at the end of
subsection (c)(3) (as added by section 515(b) of Public Law
101-625); and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
[[Page H4740]]
``(d) Disallowance of Earned Income From Public Housing
Rent Determinations.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the rent payable under subsection (a) by a family--
``(A) that--
``(i) occupies a unit in a public housing project; or
``(ii) receives assistance under section 8; and
``(B) whose income increases as a result of employment of a
member of the family who was previously unemployed for 1 or
more years (including a family whose income increases as a
result of the participation of a family member in any family
self-sufficiency or other job training program);
may not be increased as a result of the increased income due
to such employment during the 18-month period beginning on
the date on which the employment is commenced.
``(2) Phase-in of rate increases.--After the expiration of
the 18-month period referred to in paragraph (1), rent
increases due to the continued employment of the family
member described in paragraph (1)(B) shall be phased in over
a subsequent 3-year period.
``(3) Overall limitation.--Rent payable under subsection
(a) shall not exceed the amount determined under subsection
(a).''.
(2) Applicability of amendment.--
(A) Public housing.--Notwithstanding the amendment made by
paragraph (1), any tenant of public housing participating in
the program under the authority contained in the undesignated
paragraph at the end of section 3(c)(3) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937, as that paragraph existed on the day
before the date of enactment this Act, shall be governed by
that authority after that date.
(B) Section 8.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall
apply to tenant-based assistance provided under section 8 of
the United States Housing Act of 1937, with funds
appropriated on or after October 1, 1996.
(c) Definitions of Terms Used in Reference to Public
Housing.--
(1) In general.--Section 3(c) of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(c)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and of the fees and
related costs normally involved in obtaining non-Federal
financing and tax credits with or without private and
nonprofit partners'' after ``carrying charges''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), in the first sentence, by striking
``security personnel),'' and all that follows through the
period and inserting the following: ``security personnel),
service coordinators, drug elimination activities, or
financing in connection with a public housing project,
including projects developed with non-Federal financing and
tax credits, with or without private and nonprofit
partners.''.
(2) Technical correction.--Section 622(c) of the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-550;
106 Stat. 3817) is amended by striking `` `project.' '' and
inserting ``paragraph (3)''.
(3) New definitions.--Section 3(c) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(c)) is amended by adding
at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(6) Public housing agency plan.--The term `public housing
agency plan' means the plan of the public housing agency
prepared in accordance with section 5A.
``(7) Disabled housing.--The term `disabled housing' means
any public housing project, building, or portion of a project
or building, that is designated by a public housing agency
for occupancy exclusively by disabled persons or families.
``(8) Elderly housing.--The term `elderly housing' means
any public housing project, building, or portion of a project
or building, that is designated by a public housing agency
exclusively for occupancy exclusively by elderly persons or
families, including elderly disabled persons or families.
``(9) Mixed-income project.--The term `mixed-income
project' means a public housing project that meets the
requirements of section 28.
``(10) Capital fund.--The term `Capital Fund' means the
fund established under section 9(c).
``(11) Operating fund.--The term `Operating Fund' means the
fund established under section 9(d).''.
SEC. 105. CONTRIBUTIONS FOR LOWER INCOME HOUSING PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--Section 5 of the United States Housing Act
of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437c) is amended by striking subsections
(h) through (l).
(b) Conforming Amendments.--The United States Housing Act
of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 21(d), by striking ``section 5(h) or'';
(2) in section 25(l)(1), by striking ``and for sale under
section 5(h)''; and
(3) in section 307, by striking ``section 5(h) and''.
SEC. 106. PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY PLAN.
(a) In General.--Title I of the United States Housing Act
of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.) is amended by inserting
after section 5 the following new section:
``SEC. 5A. PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY PLAN.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Submission.--Each public housing agency shall submit
to the Secretary a written public housing agency plan
developed in accordance with this section.
``(2) Consistency requirement.--Each public housing agency
plan submitted to the Secretary under paragraph (1) shall
be--
``(A) made in consultation with the local advisory board
established under subsection (c);
``(B) consistent with the comprehensive housing
affordability strategy for the jurisdiction in which the
public housing agency is located, as provided under title I
of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, or,
with respect to any Indian tribe, a comprehensive plan
developed by the Indian tribe, if applicable; and
``(C) accompanied by a certification by an appropriate
State, tribal, or local public official that the plan meets
the requirements of subparagraph (B).
``(b) Contents.--Each public housing agency plan shall
contain, at a minimum, the following:
``(1) Certification.--
``(A) In general.--With respect to a public housing agency
that has not received assistance under this title as of the
date on which the public housing agency plan of that public
housing agency is submitted, or a public housing agency that
is subject to amended authority, a written certification that
the public housing agency is a governmental entity or public
body (or an agency or instrumentality thereof) that is
authorized to engage or assist in the development or
operation of low-income housing under this title.
``(B) Identification of certain references.--Subject to
subparagraph (A), any reference in any provision of law of
the jurisdiction authorizing the creation of the public
housing agency shall be identified and any legislative
declaration of purpose in regard thereto shall be set forth
in the certification with full text.
``(2) Statement of policy.--An annual statement of policy
identifying the primary goals and objectives of the public
housing agency for the year for which the statement is
submitted, together with any major developments, projects, or
programs, including all proposed costs and activities carried
out with the use of Capital Fund and Operating Fund
distributions made available to the public housing agency
under section 9.
``(3) Statement of needs.--An annual statement of the
housing needs of low-income families residing in the
community, and of other low-income families on the waiting
list of the public housing agency (including the housing
needs of elderly families and disabled families), and the
means by which the public housing agency intends, to the
maximum extent practicable, to address those needs.
``(4) General policies, rules, and regulations.--The
policies, rules, and regulations of the public housing agency
regarding--
``(A) the requirements for the selection and admission of
eligible families into the program or programs of the public
housing agency, including--
``(i) tenant screening policies;
``(ii) any preferences or priorities for selection and
admission;
``(iii) annual income verification procedures; and
``(iv) requirements relating to the administration of any
waiting lists of the public housing agency;
``(B) the procedure for assignment of families admitted
into the program to dwelling units owned, leased, managed, or
assisted by the public housing agency;
``(C) the requirements for occupancy of dwelling units,
including all standard lease provisions, and conditions for
continued occupancy, termination, and eviction;
``(D) procedures for establishing rents, including ceiling
rents and adjustments to income; and
``(E) procedures for designating certain public housing
projects, or portions of projects, for occupancy by elderly
families, disabled families, or by elderly and disabled
families.
``(5) Operation and management.--The policies, rules, and
regulations relating to the management of the public housing
agency, and the public housing projects and programs of the
public housing agency, including--
``(A) a description of the manner in which the public
housing agency is organized (including any consortia or joint
ventures) and staffed to perform the duties and functions of
the public housing agency and to administer the Operating
Fund distributions of the public housing agency;
``(B) policies relating to the rental of dwelling units
owned or operated by the public housing agency, including
policies designed to reduce vacancies;
``(C) policies relating to providing a safe and secure
environment in public housing units, including anticrime and
antidrug activities;
``(D) policies relating to the management and operation, or
participation in mixed-income projects, if applicable;
``(E) policies relating to services and amenities provided
or offered to assisted families, including the provision of
service coordinators and services designed for certain
populations, such as the elderly and disabled;
``(F) procedures for implementing the work requirements of
section 12(c);
``(G) procedures for identifying management weaknesses;
``(H) objectives for improving management practices;
``(I) a description of management initiatives to control
the costs of operating the public housing agency;
[[Page H4741]]
``(J) a plan for preventative maintenance and a plan for
routine maintenance;
``(K) policies relating to any plans for converting public
housing to a system of tenant-based assistance; and
``(L) policies relating to the operation of any
homeownership programs.
``(6) Capital fund requirements.--The policies, rules, and
regulations relating to the management and administration of
the Capital Fund distributions of the public housing agency,
including--
``(A) the capital needs of the public housing agency;
``(B) plans for capital expenditures related to providing a
safe and secure environment in public housing units,
including anticrime and antidrug activities;
``(C) policies relating to providing a safe and secure
environment in public housing units, including anticrime and
antidrug activities;
``(D) policies relating to the capital requirements of
mixed-income projects, if applicable;
``(E) an annual plan and, if appropriate, a 5-year plan of
the public housing agency for the capital needs of the
existing dwelling units of the public housing agency, each of
which shall include a general statement identifying the long-
term viability and physical condition of each of the public
housing projects and other property of the public housing
agency, including cost estimates;
``(F) a plan to handle emergencies and other disasters;
``(G) the use of funds for new or additional units,
including capital contributions to mixed-income projects, if
applicable;
``(H) any plans for the sale of existing dwelling units to
low-income residents or organizations acting as conduits for
sales to such residents under a homeownership plan;
``(I) any plans for converting public housing units to a
system of tenant-based assistance; and
``(J) any plans for demolition and disposition of public
housing units, including any plans for replacement units and
any plans providing for the relocation of residents who will
be displaced by a demolition or disposition of units.
``(7) Economic and social self-sufficiency programs.--A
description of any policies, programs, plans, and activities
of the public housing agency for the enhancement of the
economic and social self-sufficiency of residents assisted by
the programs of the public housing agency.
``(8) Annual audit.--The results of an annual audit
(including any audit of management practices, as required by
the Secretary) of the public housing agency, which shall be
conducted by an independent certified public accounting firm
pursuant to generally accepted accounting principles.
``(c) Local Advisory Board.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (5),
each public housing agency 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 public housing agency.
``(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 public housing agency, 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 public
housing agency is located; and
``(ii) local government officials of the community in which
the public housing agency is located.
``(3) Purpose.--Each local advisory board established under
this subsection shall assist and make recommendations
regarding the development of the public housing agency plan.
The public housing agency shall consider the recommendations
of the local advisory board in preparing the final public
housing agency plan, and shall include a copy of those
recommendations in the public housing agency plan submitted
to the Secretary under this section.
``(4) Inapplicability to indian housing.--This subsection
does not apply to an Indian housing authority.
``(5) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the requirements of
this subsection with respect to tenant representation on the
local advisory board of a public housing agency, if the
public housing agency demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Secretary that a resident council or other tenant
organization of the public housing agency adequately
represents the interests of the tenants of the public housing
agency.
``(d) Publication of Notice.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 45 days before the date
of a hearing conducted under paragraph (2) by the governing
body of a public housing agency, the public housing agency
shall publish a notice informing the public that--
``(A) the proposed public housing agency plan is available
for inspection at the principal office of the public housing
agency during normal business hours; and
``(B) a public hearing will be conducted to discuss the
public housing agency plan and to invite public comment
regarding that plan.
``(2) Public hearing.--Each public housing agency shall, at
a location that is convenient to residents, conduct a public
hearing, as provided in the notice published under paragraph
(1).
``(3) Adoption of plan.--After conducting the public
hearing under paragraph (2), and after considering all public
comments received and, in consultation with the local
advisory board, making any appropriate changes in the public
housing agency plan, the public housing agency shall--
``(A) adopt the public housing agency plan; and
``(B) submit the plan to the Secretary in accordance with
this section.
``(e) Coordinated Procedures.--Each public housing agency
(other than an Indian housing authority) shall, in
conjunction with the State or relevant unit of general local
government, establish procedures to ensure that the public
housing agency plan required by this section is consistent
with the applicable comprehensive housing affordability
strategy for the jurisdiction in which the public housing
agency is located, in accordance with title I of the
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act.
``(f) Amendments and Modifications to Plans.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
nothing in this section shall preclude a public housing
agency, after submitting a plan to the Secretary in
accordance with this section, from amending or modifying any
policy, rule, regulation, or plan of the public housing
agency, except that no such significant amendment or
modification may be adopted or implemented--
``(A) other than at a duly called meeting of commissioners
(or other comparable governing body) of the public housing
agency that is open to the public; and
``(B) until notification of the amendment or modification
is provided to the Secretary and approved in accordance with
subsection (g)(2).
``(2) Consistency.--Each significant amendment or
modification to a public housing agency plan submitted to the
Secretary under this section shall--
``(A) meet the consistency requirement of subsection
(a)(2);
``(B) be subject to the notice and public hearing
requirements of subsection (d); and
``(C) be subject to approval by the Secretary in accordance
with subsection (g)(2).
``(g) Timing of Plans.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Initial submission.--Each public housing agency shall
submit the initial plan required by this section, and any
amendment or modification to the initial plan, to the
Secretary at such time and in such form as the Secretary
shall require.
``(B) Annual submission.--Not later than 60 days prior to
the start of the fiscal year of the public housing agency,
after initial submission of the plan required by this section
in accordance with subparagraph (A), each public housing
agency shall annually submit to the Secretary a plan update,
including any amendments or modifications to the public
housing agency plan.
``(2) Review and approval.--
``(A) Review.--After submission of the public housing
agency plan or any amendment or modification to the plan to
the Secretary, to the extent that the Secretary considers
such action to be necessary to make determinations under this
subparagraph, the Secretary shall review the public housing
agency plan (including any amendments or modifications
thereto) to determine whether the contents of the plan--
``(i) set forth the information required by this section to
be contained in a public housing agency plan;
``(ii) are consistent with information and data available
to the Secretary; and
``(iii) are prohibited by or inconsistent with any
provision of this title or other applicable law.
``(B) Approval.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3)(B),
not later than 60 days after the date on which a public
housing agency plan is submitted in accordance with this
section, the Secretary shall provide written notice to the
public housing agency if the plan has been disapproved,
stating with specificity the reasons for the disapproval.
``(ii) Failure to provide notice of disapproval.--If the
Secretary does not provide notice of disapproval under clause
(i) before the expiration of the 60-day period described in
clause (i), the public housing agency plan shall be deemed to
be approved by the Secretary.
``(3) Secretarial discretion.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may require such
additional information as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate for each public housing agency that is--
``(i) at risk of being designated as troubled under section
6(j); or
``(ii) designated as troubled under section 6(j).
``(B) Troubled agencies.--The Secretary shall provide
explicit written approval or disapproval, in a timely manner,
for a public housing agency plan submitted by any public
housing agency designated by the Secretary as a troubled
public housing agency under section 6(j).
``(4) Streamlined plan.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary may establish a streamlined public housing agency
plan for--
``(A) public housing agencies that are determined by the
Secretary to be high performing public housing agencies; and
[[Page H4742]]
``(B) public housing agencies with less than 250 public
housing units that have not been designated as troubled under
section 6(j).''.
(b) Implementation.--
(1) Interim rule.--Not later than 120 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue an
interim rule to require the submission of an interim public
housing agency plan by each public housing agency, as
required by section 5A of the United States Housing Act of
1937 (as added by subsection (a) of this section).
(2) Final regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act, in accordance with the
negotiated rulemaking procedures set forth in subchapter III
of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, the Secretary
shall promulgate final regulations implementing section 5A of
the United States Housing Act of 1937, as added by subsection
(a) of this section.
(3) Indian housing authorities.--In carrying out this
subsection, the Secretary may implement separate rules and
regulations for the Indian housing program.
(c) Audit and Review; Report.--
(1) Audit and review.--Not later than 1 year after the
effective date of final regulations promulgated under
subsection (b)(2), in order to determine the degree of
compliance with public housing agency plans approved under
section 5A of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as added
by this section, by public housing agencies, the Comptroller
General of the United States shall conduct--
(A) a review of a representative sample of the public
housing agency plans approved under such section 5A before
that date; and
(B) an audit and review of the public housing agencies
submitting those plans.
(2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date on which
public housing agency plans are initially required to be
submitted under section 5A of the United States Housing Act
of 1937, as added by this section, the Comptroller General of
the United States shall submit to the Congress a report,
which shall include--
(A) a description of the results of each audit and review
under paragraph (1); and
(B) any recommendations for increasing compliance by public
housing agencies with their public housing agency plans
approved under section 5A of the United States Housing Act of
1937, as added by this section.
SEC. 107. CONTRACT PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Conditions.--Section 6(a) of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437d(a)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by inserting ``, in a manner
consistent with the public housing agency plan'' before the
period; and
(2) by striking the second sentence.
(b) Repeal of Federal Preferences; Revision of Maximum
Income Limits; Certification of Compliance With Requirements;
Notification of Eligibility.--Section 6(c) of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437d(c)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(c) [Reserved.]''.
(c) Excess Funds.--Section 6(e) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437d(e)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(e) [Reserved.]''.
(d) Performance Indicators for Public Housing Agencies.--
Section 6(j) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437d(j)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``obligated'' and inserting ``provided'';
and
(ii) by striking ``unexpended'' and inserting ``unobligated
by the public housing agency'';
(B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``energy'' and
inserting ``utility'';
(C) by redesignating subparagraph (H) as subparagraph (J);
and
(D) by inserting after subparagraph (G) the following new
subparagraphs:
``(H) The extent to which the public housing agency
provides--
``(i) effective programs and activities to promote the
economic self-sufficiency of public housing tenants; and
``(ii) public housing tenants with opportunities for
involvement in the administration of the public housing.
``(I) The extent to which the public housing agency
successfully meets the goals and carries out the activities
and programs of the public housing agency plan under section
5(A).''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)(A)(i), by inserting after the first
sentence the following: ``The Secretary may use a simplified
set of indicators for public housing agencies with less than
250 public housing units.''.
(e) Leases.--Section 6(l) of the United States Housing Act
of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437d(l)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``not be less than'' and
all that follows before the semicolon and inserting ``be the
period of time required under State law''; and
(2) in paragraph (5), by striking ``on or near such
premises''.
(f) Public Housing Assistance to Foster Care Children.--
Section 6(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437d(o)) is amended by striking ``Subject'' and all
that follows through ``, in'' and inserting ``In''.
(g) Preference for Areas With Inadequate Supply of Very
Low-Income Housing.--Section 6(p) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437d(p)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(p) [Reserved.]''.
(h) Availability of Criminal Records for Screening and
Eviction; Eviction for Drug-Related Activity.--Section 6 of
the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437d) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(q) Availability of Records.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Provision of information.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, except as provided in subparagraph (B), the
National Crime Information Center, police departments, and
other law enforcement agencies shall, upon request, provide
information to public housing agencies regarding the criminal
conviction records of adult applicants for, or tenants of,
public housing for purposes of applicant screening, lease
enforcement, and eviction.
``(B) Exception.--Except as provided under any provision of
State, tribal, or local law, no law enforcement agency
described in subparagraph (A) shall provide information under
this paragraph relating to any criminal conviction if the
date of that conviction occurred 5 or more years prior to the
date on which the request for the information is made.
``(2) Opportunity to dispute.--Before an adverse action is
taken on the basis of a criminal record, the public housing
agency 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.
``(3) Fee.--A public housing agency may be charged a
reasonable fee for information provided under paragraph (1).
``(4) Records management.--Each public housing agency shall
establish and implement a system of records management that
ensures that any criminal record received by the public
housing agency is--
``(A) maintained confidentially;
``(B) not misused or improperly disseminated; and
``(C) destroyed, once the purpose for which the record was
requested has been accomplished.
``(5) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, 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.
``(r) Eviction for Drug-Related Activity.--Any tenant
evicted from housing assisted under this title by reason of
drug-related criminal activity (as that term is defined in
section 8(f)(5)) shall not be eligible for housing assistance
under this title during the 3-year period beginning on the
date of such eviction, unless the evicted tenant successfully
completes a rehabilitation program approved by the public
housing agency (which shall include a waiver of this
subsection if the circumstances leading to eviction no longer
exist).''.
(i) Transition Rule Relating to Preferences.--During the
period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and
ending on the date on which the initial public housing agency
plan of a public housing agency is approved under section 5A
of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as added by this
Act, the public housing agency may establish local
preferences for making available public housing under the
United States Housing Act of 1937 and for providing tenant-
based assistance under section 8 of that Act.
SEC. 108. EXPANSION OF POWERS.
(a) In General.--Section 6(j)(3) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437d(j)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by redesignating clauses (iii) and (iv) as clauses (iv)
and (v), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after clause (ii) the following new
clause:
``(iii) take possession of the public housing agency,
including any project or function of the agency, including
any project or function under any other provision of this
title;'';
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) through (D) as
subparagraphs (E) through (G), respectively;
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new
subparagraphs:
``(B)(i) If a public housing agency is identified as
troubled under this subsection, the Secretary shall notify
the agency of the troubled status of the agency.
``(ii) The Secretary may give a public housing agency a 1-
year period, beginning on the later of the date on which the
agency receives notice from the Secretary of the troubled
status of the agency under clause (i), and the date of
enactment of the Public Housing Reform and Empowerment Act of
1995, within which to demonstrate improvement satisfactory to
the Secretary. Nothing in this clause shall preclude the
Secretary from taking any action the Secretary considers
necessary before the commencement or the expiration of the 1-
year period described in this clause.
``(iii) Upon the expiration of the 1-year period described
in clause (ii), if the troubled public housing agency has not
demonstrated improvement satisfactory to the Secretary and
the Secretary has not yet declared the agency to be in breach
of the contract of the agency with the Federal Government
under this title, the Secretary shall declare the public
housing agency to be in substantial default, as described in
subparagraph (A).
``(iv) Upon declaration of a substantial default under
clause (iii), the Secretary--
``(I) shall either--
``(aa) petition for the appointment of a receiver pursuant
to subparagraph (A)(ii);
``(bb) take possession of the public housing agency or any
public housing projects of the public housing agency pursuant
to subparagraph (A)(iii); or
[[Page H4743]]
``(cc) take such actions as the Secretary determines to be
necessary to cure the substantial default; and
``(II) may, in addition, take other appropriate action.
``(C)(i) If a receiver is appointed pursuant to
subparagraph (A)(ii), in addition to the powers accorded by
the court appointing the receiver, the receiver--
``(I) may abrogate any contract that substantially impedes
correction of the substantial default;
``(II) may demolish and dispose of the assets of the public
housing agency, in accordance with section 18, including the
transfer of properties to resident-supported nonprofit
entities;
``(III) if determined to be appropriate by the Secretary,
may require the establishment, as permitted by applicable
State, tribal, and local law, of one or more new public
housing agencies; and
``(IV) shall not be subject to any State, tribal, or local
law relating to civil service requirements, employee rights,
procurement, or financial or administrative controls that, in
the determination of the receiver, substantially impedes
correction of the substantial default.
``(ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, the term `public
housing agency' includes any project or function of a public
housing agency, as appropriate, including any project or
function under any other provision of this title.
``(D)(i) If the Secretary takes possession of a public
housing agency, or any project or function of the agency,
pursuant to subparagraph (A)(iii), the Secretary--
``(I) may abrogate any contract that substantially impedes
correction of the substantial default;
``(II) may demolish and dispose of the assets of the public
housing agency, in accordance with section 18, including the
transfer of properties to resident-supported nonprofit
entities;
``(III) may require the establishment, as permitted by
applicable State, tribal, and local law, of one or more new
public housing agencies;
``(IV) shall not be subject to any State, tribal, or local
law relating to civil service requirements, employee rights,
procurement, or financial or administrative controls that, in
the determination of the Secretary, substantially impedes
correction of the substantial default; and
``(V) shall have such additional authority as a district
court of the United States has conferred under like
circumstances on a receiver to fulfill the purposes of the
receivership.
``(ii) The Secretary may appoint, on a competitive or
noncompetitive basis, an individual or entity as an
administrative receiver to assume the responsibilities of the
Secretary under this subparagraph for the administration of a
public housing agency. The Secretary may delegate to the
administrative receiver any or all of the powers given the
Secretary by this subparagraph, as the Secretary determines
to be appropriate.
``(iii) Regardless of any delegation under this
subparagraph, an administrative receiver may not require the
establishment of one or more new public housing agencies
pursuant to clause (i)(III), unless the Secretary first
approves an application by the administrative receiver to
authorize such establishment.
``(iv) For purposes of this subparagraph, the term `public
housing agency' includes any project or function of a public
housing agency, as appropriate, including any project or
function under any other provision of this title.''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(H) If the Secretary (or an administrative receiver
appointed by the Secretary) takes possession of a public
housing agency (including any project or function of the
agency), or if a receiver is appointed by a court, the
Secretary or receiver shall be deemed to be acting not in the
official capacity of that person or entity, but rather in the
capacity of the public housing agency, and any liability
incurred, regardless of whether the incident giving rise to
that liability occurred while the Secretary or receiver was
in possession of the public housing agency (including any
project or function of the agency), shall be the liability of
the public housing agency.''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to a public housing agency that is found to be in
substantial default, on or after the date of enactment of
this Act, with respect to the covenants or conditions to
which the agency is subject (as such substantial default is
defined in the contract for contributions of the agency) or
with respect to an agreement entered into under section
6(j)(2)(C) of the United States Housing Act of 1937.
SEC. 109. PUBLIC HOUSING DESIGNATED FOR THE ELDERLY AND THE
DISABLED.
(a) In General.--Section 7 of the United States Housing Act
of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437e) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 7. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE DESIGNATED HOUSING.
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a public housing agency may, in the discretion of the
public housing agency and without approval by the Secretary,
designate public housing projects or mixed-income projects
(or portions of projects) for occupancy as elderly housing,
disabled housing, or elderly and disabled housing. The public
housing agency shall establish requirements for this section,
including priorities for occupancy, in the public housing
agency plan.
``(b) Priority for Occupancy.--
``(1) In general.--In determining priority for admission to
public housing projects (or portions of projects) that are
designated for occupancy under this section, the public
housing agency may make units in such projects (or portions
of projects) available only to the types of families for whom
the project is designated.
``(2) Eligibility of near-elderly families.--If a public
housing agency determines that there are insufficient numbers
of elderly families to fill all the units in a public housing
project (or portion thereof) designated under this section
for occupancy by only elderly families, the agency may
provide that near-elderly families who qualify for occupancy
may occupy dwelling units in the public housing project (or
portion thereof).
``(3) Vacancy.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), in
designating a public housing project (or portion thereof) for
occupancy by only certain types of families under this
section, a public housing agency shall make any dwelling unit
that is ready for occupancy in such a project (or portion
thereof) that has been vacant for more than 60 consecutive
days generally available for occupancy (subject to this
title) without regard to that designation.
``(c) Availability of Housing.--
``(1) Tenant choice.--The decision of any disabled family
not to occupy or accept occupancy in an appropriate public
housing project or to otherwise accept any assistance made
available to the family under this title shall not adversely
affect the family with respect to a public housing agency
making available occupancy in other appropriate public
housing projects or to otherwise make assistance available to
that family under this title.
``(2) Discriminatory selection.--Paragraph (1) does not
apply to any family that decides not to occupy or accept an
appropriate dwelling unit in public housing or to accept
assistance under this Act on the basis of the race, color,
religion, gender, disability, familial status, or national
origin of occupants of the housing or the surrounding area.
``(3) Appropriateness of dwelling units.--This section may
not be construed to require a public housing agency to offer
occupancy in any dwelling unit assisted under this Act to any
family that is not of appropriate family size for the
dwelling unit.
``(d) Prohibition of Evictions.--Any tenant who is lawfully
residing in a dwelling unit in a public housing project may
not be evicted or otherwise required to vacate that unit as a
result of the designation of the public housing project (or
portion thereof) under this section or as a result of any
other action taken by the Secretary or any public housing
agency pursuant to this section.
``(e) Limitation on Occupancy in Designated Projects.--
``(1) Occupancy limitation.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, a dwelling unit in a public housing project
(or portion of a project) that is designated under subsection
(a) shall not be occupied by any person whose illegal use (or
pattern of illegal use) of a controlled substance or abuse
(or pattern of abuse) of alcohol--
``(A) constitutes a disability; and
``(B) provides reasonable cause for the public housing
agency to believe that such occupancy could interfere with
the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the
premises by the tenants of the public housing project.
``(2) Required statement.--A public housing agency may not
make a dwelling unit in a public housing project (or portion
of a project) designated under subsection (a) available for
occupancy to any family, unless the application for occupancy
by that family is accompanied by a signed statement that no
person who will be occupying the unit illegally uses a
controlled substance, or abuses alcohol, in a manner that
would interfere with the health, safety, or right to peaceful
enjoyment of the premises by the tenants of the public
housing project.''.
(b) Lease Provisions.--Section 6(l) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437d(l)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (5) following new
paragraph:
``(6) provide that any occupancy in violation of section
7(e)(1) or the furnishing of any false or misleading
information pursuant to section 7(e)(2) shall be cause for
termination of tenancy; and''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 6(c)(4)(A) of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437(b)(4)(A)) is
amended by striking ``section 7(a)'' and inserting ``section
7''.
SEC. 110. PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL AND OPERATING FUNDS.
(a) In General.--Section 9 of the United States Housing Act
of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437g) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 9. PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL AND OPERATING FUNDS.
``(a) In General.--Except for assistance provided under
section 8 of this Act or as otherwise provided in the Public
Housing Reform and Empowerment Act of 1995, all programs
under which assistance is provided for
[[Page H4744]]
public housing under this Act on the day before October 1,
1997, shall be merged, as appropriate, into either--
``(1) the Capital Fund established under subsection (c); or
``(2) the Operating Fund established under subsection (d).
``(b) Use of Existing Funds.--With the exception of funds
made available pursuant to section 8 or section 20(f) and
funds made available for the urban revitalization
demonstration program authorized under the Department of
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Acts--
``(1) funds made available to the Secretary for public
housing purposes that have not been obligated by the
Secretary to a public housing agency as of October 1, 1997,
shall be made available, for the period originally provided
in law, for use in either the Capital Fund or the Operating
Fund, as appropriate; and
``(2) funds made available to the Secretary for public
housing purposes that have been obligated by the Secretary to
a public housing agency but that, as of October 1, 1997, have
not been obligated by the public housing agency, may be made
available by that public housing agency, for the period
originally provided in law, for use in either the Capital
Fund or the Operating Fund, as appropriate.
``(c) Capital Fund.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a Capital
Fund for the purpose of making assistance available to public
housing agencies to carry out capital and management
activities, including--
``(A) the development and modernization of public housing
projects, including the redesign, reconstruction, and
reconfiguration of public housing sites and buildings and the
development of mixed-income projects;
``(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;
``(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) Establishment of capital fund formula.--The Secretary
shall develop a formula for providing assistance under the
Capital Fund, which may take into account--
``(A) the number of public housing dwelling units owned or
operated by the public housing agency and the percentage of
those units that are occupied by very low-income families;
``(B) if applicable, the reduction in the number of public
housing units owned or operated by the public housing agency
as a result of any conversion to a system of tenant-based
assistance;
``(C) the costs to the public housing agency of meeting the
rehabilitation and modernization needs, and meeting the
reconstruction, development, and demolition needs of public
housing dwelling units owned and operated by the public
housing agency;
``(D) the degree of household poverty served by the public
housing agency;
``(E) the costs to the public housing agency of providing a
safe and secure environment in public housing units owned and
operated by the public housing agency; and
``(F) the ability of the public housing agency to
effectively administer the Capital Fund distribution of the
public housing agency.
``(d) Operating Fund.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish an
Operating Fund for the purpose of making assistance available
to public housing agencies for the operation and management
of public housing, including--
``(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) anticrime and antidrug 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 projects, to the extent
appropriate (including the funding of an operating reserve to
ensure affordability for low-income families in lieu of the
availability of operating funds for public housing units in a
mixed-income project);
``(G) the reasonable costs of insurance;
``(H) the reasonable energy costs associated with public
housing units, with an emphasis on energy conservation; and
``(I) the costs of administering a public housing work
program under section 12, including the costs of any related
insurance needs.
``(2) Establishment of operating fund formula.--The
Secretary shall establish a formula for providing assistance
under the Operating Fund, which may take into account--
``(A) standards for the costs of operation and reasonable
projections of income, taking into account the character and
location of the public housing project and characteristics of
the families served, or the costs of providing comparable
services as determined with criteria or a formula
representing the operations of a prototype well-managed
public housing project;
``(B) the number of public housing dwelling units owned and
operated by the public housing agency, the percentage of
those units that are occupied by very low-income families,
and, if applicable, the reduction in the number of public
housing units as a result of any conversion to a system of
tenant-based assistance;
``(C) the degree of household poverty served by a public
housing agency;
``(D) the extent to which the public housing agency
provides programs and activities designed to promote the
economic self-sufficiency and management skills of public
housing tenants;
``(E) the number of dwelling units owned and operated by
the public housing agency that are chronically vacant and the
amount of assistance appropriate for those units;
``(F) the costs of the public housing agency associated
with anticrime and antidrug activities, including the costs
of providing adequate security for public housing tenants;
and
``(G) the ability of the public housing agency to
effectively administer the Operating Fund distribution of the
public housing agency.
``(e) Limitations on Use of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--Each public housing agency may use not
more than 20 percent of the Capital Fund distribution of the
public housing agency for activities that are eligible for
assistance under the Operating Fund under subsection (d), if
the public housing agency plan provides for such use.
``(2) New construction.--
``(A) In general.--A public housing agency may not use any
of the Capital Fund or Operating Fund distributions of the
public housing agency for the purpose of constructing any
public housing unit, if such construction would result in a
net increase in the number of public housing units owned or
operated by the public housing agency on the date of
enactment of the Public Housing Reform and Empowerment Act of
1995, including any public housing units demolished as part
of any revitalization effort.
``(B) Exception.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), a
public housing agency may use the Capital Fund or Operating
Fund distributions of the public housing agency for the
construction and operation of housing units that are
available and affordable to low-income families in excess of
the limitations on new construction set forth in subparagraph
(A), except that the formulae established under subsections
(c)(2) and (d)(2) shall not provide additional funding for
the specific purpose of allowing construction and operation
of housing in excess of those limitations.''.
``(f) Operating and Capital Assistance to Resident
Management Corporations.--The Secretary shall directly
provide operating and capital assistance under this section
to each resident management corporation managing a public
housing project pursuant to a contract under this section,
which assistance shall be used for purposes of operating the
public housing project and performing such other eligible
activities with respect to the project as may be provided
under the contract.
``(g) Indian Housing Programs.--To the extent provided in
advance in appropriations Acts, the Secretary shall carry out
housing programs for Indians in accordance with such formulas
and programs as the Secretary shall establish by regulation.
``(h) Technical Assistance.--To the extent approved in
advance in appropriations Acts, the Secretary may make grants
or enter into contracts in accordance with this subsection
for purposes of providing, either directly or indirectly--
``(1) technical assistance to public housing agencies,
resident councils, resident organizations, and resident
management corporations, including assistance relating to
monitoring and inspections;
``(2) training for public housing agency employees and
tenants;
``(3) data collection and analysis; and
``(4) training, technical assistance, and education to
assist public housing agencies that are--
``(A) at risk of being designated as troubled under section
6(j) from being so designated; and
``(B) designated as troubled under section 6(j) in
achieving the removal of that designation.
``(i) Emergency Reserve.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Set-aside.--In each fiscal year, the Secretary shall
set aside not more than 2 percent of the amount made
available for use under the capital fund to carry out this
section for that fiscal year for use in accordance with this
subsection.
``(B) Use of funds.--
``(i) Emergencies.--Amounts set aside under this paragraph
shall be available to the Secretary for use in connection
with emergencies, as determined by the Secretary, and in
connection with housing needs resulting from any settlement
of litigation.
``(ii) Additional funds.--To the extent that there are
funds from amounts set aside under this paragraph in excess
to the needs described in clause (i), the Secretary may use
those funds for the costs of establishing
[[Page H4745]]
and administering a witness relocation program, which shall
be established by the Secretary in conjunction with the
Attorney General of the United States.
``(2) Allocation.--
``(A) In general.--Amounts set aside under this subsection
shall initially be allocated based on the emergency and
litigation settlement needs of public housing agencies, in
such manner, and in such amounts as the Secretary shall
determine.
``(B) Publication.--The Secretary shall publish the use of
any amounts allocated under this subsection in the Federal
Register.''.
(b) Implementation; Effective Date; Transition Period.--
(1) Implementation.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of this Act, in accordance with the negotiated
rulemaking procedures set forth in subchapter III of chapter
5 of title 5, United States Code, the Secretary shall
establish the formulas described in subsections (c)(3) and
(d)(2) of section 9 of the Public Housing Reform and
Empowerment Act of 1995, as amended by this section.
(2) Effective date.--The formulas established under
paragraph (1) shall be effective only with respect to amounts
made available under section 9 of the United States Housing
Act of 1937, as amended by this section, in fiscal year 1998
or in any succeeding fiscal year.
(3) Transition period.--Prior to the effective date
described in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall provide that
each public housing agency shall receive funding under
sections 9 and 14 of the United States Housing Act of 1937,
as those sections existed on the day before the date of
enactment of this Act.
(c) Drug Elimination Grants.--
(1) Funding authorization.--
(A) In general.--To the extent provided in advance in
appropriations Acts for fiscal years 1996 and 1997, the
Secretary shall make grants for--
(i) use in eliminating drug-related crime under the Public
and Assisted Housing Drug Elimination Act of 1990; and
(ii) drug elimination clearinghouse services authorized by
section 5143 of the Drug-Free Public Housing Act of 1988.
(B) Set-aside.--Of any amounts made available to carry out
subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall set aside amounts for
grants, technical assistance, contracts, and other
assistance, and for training, program assessment, and
execution for or on behalf of public housing agencies and
resident organizations (including the cost of necessary
travel for participants in such training).
(2) Program requirements.--The use of amounts made
available under paragraph (1) shall be governed by the Public
and Assisted Housing Drug Elimination Act of 1990, except as
follows:
(A) Formula allocation.--Notwithstanding the Public and
Assisted Housing Drug Elimination Act of 1990, after setting
aside amounts for assisted housing under section 5130(b) of
such Act, the Secretary may make grants to public housing
agencies in accordance with a formula established by the
Secretary, which shall--
(i) take into account the needs of the public housing
agency for anticrime funding, and the amount of funding that
the public housing agency has received under the Public and
Assisted Housing Drug Elimination Act of 1990 during fiscal
years 1993, 1994, and 1995; and
(ii) not exclude an eligible public housing agency that has
not received funding during the period described in clause
(i).
(B) Other types of crime.--For purposes of this subsection,
the Secretary may define the term ``drug-related crime'' to
include criminal actions other than those described in
section 5126(2) of the Public and Assisted Housing Drug
Elimination Act of 1990.
(3) Sunset.--No grant may be made under this subsection on
or after October 1, 1998.
SEC. 111. LABOR STANDARDS.
Section 12 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437j) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(c) Work Requirement.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, each adult member of each family assisted under this
title shall contribute not less than 8 hours of volunteer
work per month (not to include any political activity) within
the community in which that adult resides.
``(2) Inclusion in plan.--Each public housing agency shall
include in the public housing agency plan a detailed
description of the manner in which the public housing agency
intends to implement and administer paragraph (1).
``(3) Exemptions.--The Secretary may provide an exemption
from paragraph (1) for any adult who is--
``(A) not less than 62 years of age;
``(B) a person with disabilities who is unable, as
determined in accordance with guidelines established by the
Secretary, to comply with this section;
``(C) working not less than 20 hours per week, a student,
receiving vocational training, or otherwise meeting work,
training, or educational requirements of a public assistance
program; or
``(D) a single parent or the spouse of an otherwise exempt
individual who is the primary caretaker of one or more
children who are 6 years of age or younger.''.
SEC. 112. REPEAL OF ENERGY CONSERVATION; CONSORTIA AND JOINT
VENTURES.
Section 13 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437k) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 13. CONSORTIA, JOINT VENTURES, AFFILIATES, AND
SUBSIDIARIES OF PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCIES.
``(a) Consortia.--
``(1) In general.--Any 2 or more public housing agencies
may participate in a consortium for the purpose of
administering any or all of the housing programs of those
public housing agencies in accordance with this section.
``(2) Effect.--With respect to any consortium described in
paragraph (1)--
``(A) any assistance made available under this title to
each of the public housing agencies participating in the
consortium shall be paid to the consortium; and
``(B) all planning and reporting requirements imposed upon
each public housing agency participating in the consortium
with respect to the programs operated by the consortium shall
be consolidated.
``(3) Restrictions.--
``(A) Agreement.--Each consortium described in paragraph
(1) shall be formed and operated in accordance with a
consortium agreement, and shall be subject to the
requirements of a joint public housing agency plan, which
shall be submitted by the consortium in accordance with
section 5A.
``(B) Minimum requirements.--The Secretary shall specify
minimum requirements relating to the formation and operation
of consortia and the minimum contents of consortium
agreements under this paragraph.
``(b) Joint Ventures.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a public housing agency, in accordance with the public
housing agency plan, may--
``(A) form and operate wholly owned or controlled
subsidiaries (which may be nonprofit corporations) and other
affiliates, any of which may be directed, managed, or
controlled by the same persons who constitute the board of
commissioners or other similar governing body of the public
housing agency, or who serve as employees or staff of the
public housing agency; or
``(B) enter into joint ventures, partnerships, or other
business arrangements with, or contract with, any person,
organization, entity, or governmental unit, with respect to
the administration of the programs of the public housing
agency, including any program that is subject to this title.
``(2) Use of income.--Any income generated under paragraph
(1) shall be used for low-income housing or to benefit the
tenants of the public housing agency.
``(3) Audits.--The Comptroller General of the United
States, the Secretary, and the Inspector General of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development may conduct an
audit of any activity undertaken under paragraph (1) at any
time.''.
SEC. 113. REPEAL OF MODERNIZATION FUND.
(a) In General.--Section 14 of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437l) is repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--The United States Housing Act
of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 5(c)(5), by striking ``for use under section
14 or'';
(2) in section 5(c)(7)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking clause (iii); and
(ii) by redesignating clauses (iv) through (x) as clauses
(iii) through (ix), respectively; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking clause (iii); and
(ii) by redesignating clauses (iv) through (x) as clauses
(iii) through (ix), respectively;
(3) in section 6(j)(1)--
(A) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(B) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) through (H) as
subparagraphs (B) through (G), respectively;
(4) in section 6(j)(2)(A)--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``The Secretary shall also
designate,'' and all that follows through the period at the
end; and
(B) in clause (iii), by striking ``(including designation
as a troubled agency for purposes of the program under
section 14)'';
(5) in section 6(j)(2)(B)--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``and determining that an
assessment under this subparagraph will not duplicate any
review conducted under section 14(p)''; and
(B) in clause (ii)--
(i) by striking ``(I) the agency's comprehensive plan
prepared pursuant to section 14 adequately and appropriately
addresses the rehabilitation needs of the agency's inventory,
(II)'' and inserting ``(I)''; and
(ii) by striking ``(III)'' and inserting ``(II)'';
(6) in section 6(j)(3)--
(A) in clause (ii), by adding ``and'' at the end;
(B) by striking clause (iii); and
(C) by redesignating clause (iv) as clause (iii);
(7) in section 6(j)(4)--
(A) in subparagraph (D), by adding ``and'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``; and'' at the end
and inserting a period; and
(C) by striking subparagraph (F);
(8) in section 20--
(A) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) [Reserved.]''; and
(B) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:
``(f) [Reserved.]'';
(9) in section 21(a)(2)--
[[Page H4746]]
(A) by striking subparagraph (A); and
(B) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
(10) in section 21(a)(3)(A)(v), by striking ``the building
or buildings meet the minimum safety and livability standards
applicable under section 14, and'';
(11) in section 25(b)(1), by striking ``From amounts
reserved'' and all that follows through ``the Secretary may''
and inserting the following: To the extent approved in
appropriations Acts, the Secretary may'';
(12) in section 25(e)(2)--
(A) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting ``To the
extent approved in appropriations Acts, the Secretary''; and
(B) by striking ``available annually from amounts under
section 14'';
(13) in section 25(e), by striking paragraph (3);
(14) in section 25(f)(2)(G)(i), by striking ``including--''
and all that follows through ``an explanation'' and inserting
``including an explanation'';
(15) in section 25(i)(1), by striking the second sentence;
and
(16) in section 202(b)(2)--
(A) by striking ``(b) Financial Assistance.--'' and all
that follows through ``The Secretary may,'' and inserting the
following:
``(b) Financial Assistance.--The Secretary may''; and
(B) by striking paragraph (2).
SEC. 114. ELIGIBILITY FOR PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING.
Section 16 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437n) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 16. ELIGIBILITY FOR PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING.
``(a) Income Eligibility for Public Housing.--
``(1) In general.--Of the dwelling units of a public
housing agency, including public housing units in a
designated mixed-income project, made available for occupancy
in any fiscal year of the public housing agency--
``(A) not less than 40 percent shall be occupied by
families whose incomes do not exceed 30 percent of the area
median income for those families;
``(B) not less than 75 percent shall be occupied by
families whose incomes do not exceed 60 percent of the area
median income for those families; and
``(C) any remaining dwelling units may be made available
for families whose incomes do not exceed 80 percent of the
area median income for those families.
``(2) Establishment of different standards.--
Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if approved by the Secretary,
a public housing agency, in accordance with the public
housing agency plan, may for good cause establish and
implement an occupancy standard other than the standard
described in paragraph (1).
``(3) Mixed-income housing standard.--Each public housing
agency plan submitted by a public housing agency shall
include a plan for achieving a diverse income mix among
tenants in each public housing project of the public housing
agency and among the scattered site public housing of the
public housing agency.
``(b) Income Eligibility for Certain Assisted Housing.--
``(1) In general.--Of the dwelling units receiving tenant-
based assistance under section 8 made available for occupancy
in any fiscal year of the public housing agency--
``(A) not less than 50 percent shall be occupied by
families whose incomes do not exceed 30 percent of the area
median income for those families; and
``(B) any remaining dwelling units may be made available
for families whose incomes do not exceed 80 percent of the
area median income for those families.
``(2) Establishment of different standards.--
Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if approved by the Secretary,
a public housing agency, in accordance with the public
housing agency plan, may for good cause establish and
implement an occupancy standard other than the standard
described in paragraph (1).
``(c) Ineligibility of Illegal Drug Users and Alcohol
Abusers.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a
public housing agency shall establish standards for occupancy
in public housing dwelling units--
``(1) that prohibit occupancy in any such unit by any
person--
``(A) who the public housing agency determines is illegally
using a controlled substance; or
``(B) if the public housing agency 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, could interfere with
the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the
premises by the tenants of the public housing project; and
``(2) that allow the public housing agency to terminate the
tenancy in any public housing unit of any person--
``(A) if the public housing agency determines that such
person is illegally using a controlled substance; or
``(B) whose illegal use of a controlled substance, or whose
abuse of alcohol, is determined by the public housing agency
to interfere with the health, safety, or right to peaceful
enjoyment of the premises by the tenants of the public
housing project.
``(d) Inapplicability to Indian Housing.--This section does
not apply to any dwelling unit assisted by an Indian housing
authority.''.
SEC. 115. DEMOLITION AND DISPOSITION OF PUBLIC HOUSING.
(a) In General.--Section 18 of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437p) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 18. DEMOLITION AND DISPOSITION OF PUBLIC HOUSING.
``(a) Applications for Demolition and Disposition.--Except
as provided in subsection (b), not later than 60 days after
receiving an application by a public housing agency for
authorization, with or without financial assistance under
this title, to demolish or dispose of a public housing
project or a portion of a public housing project (including
any transfer to a resident-supported nonprofit entity), the
Secretary shall approve the application, if the public
housing agency certifies--
``(1) in the case of--
``(A) an application proposing demolition of a public
housing project or a portion of a public housing project,
that--
``(i) the project or portion of the public housing project
is obsolete as to physical condition, location, or other
factors, making it unsuitable for housing purposes; and
``(ii) no reasonable program of modifications is cost-
effective to return the public housing project or portion of
the project to useful life; and
``(B) an application proposing the demolition of only a
portion of a public housing project, that the demolition will
help to assure the viability of the remaining portion of the
project;
``(2) in the case of an application proposing disposition
of a public housing project or other real property subject to
this title by sale or other transfer, that--
``(A) the retention of the property is not in the best
interests of the tenants or the public housing agency
because--
``(i) conditions in the area surrounding the public housing
project adversely affect the health or safety of the tenants
or the feasible operation of the project by the public
housing agency; or
``(ii) disposition allows the acquisition, development, or
rehabilitation of other properties that will be more
efficiently or effectively operated as low-income housing;
``(B) the public housing agency has otherwise determined
the disposition to be appropriate for reasons that are--
``(i) in the best interests of the tenants and the public
housing agency;
``(ii) consistent with the goals of the public housing
agency and the public housing agency plan; and
``(iii) otherwise consistent with this title; or
``(C) for property other than dwelling units, the property
is excess to the needs of a public housing project or the
disposition is incidental to, or does not interfere with,
continued operation of a public housing project;
``(3) that the public housing agency has specifically
authorized the demolition or disposition in the public
housing agency plan, and has certified that the actions
contemplated in the public housing agency plan comply with
this section;
``(4) that the public housing agency--
``(A) will provide for the payment of the relocation
expenses of each tenant to be displaced;
``(B) will ensure that the amount of rent paid by the
tenant following relocation will not exceed the amount
permitted under this title; and
``(C) will not commence demolition or complete disposition
until all tenants residing in the unit are relocated;
``(5) that the net proceeds of any disposition will be
used--
``(A) unless waived by the Secretary, for the retirement of
outstanding obligations issued to finance the original public
housing project or modernization of the project; and
``(B) to the extent that any proceeds remain after the
application of proceeds in accordance with subparagraph (A),
for the provision of low-income housing or to benefit the
tenants of the public housing agency; and
``(6) that the public housing agency has complied with
subsection (c).
``(b) Disapproval of Applications.--The Secretary shall
disapprove an application submitted under subsection (a) if
the Secretary determines that any certification made by the
public housing agency under that subsection is clearly
inconsistent with information and data available to the
Secretary.
``(c) Tenant Opportunity To Purchase in Case of Proposed
Disposition.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of a proposed disposition of
a public housing project or portion of a project, the public
housing agency shall, in appropriate circumstances, as
determined by the Secretary, initially offer the property to
any eligible resident organization, eligible resident
management corporation, or nonprofit organization supported
by the residents, if that entity has expressed an interest,
in writing, to the public housing agency in a timely manner,
in purchasing the property for continued use as low-income
housing.
``(2) Timing.--
``(A) Thirty-day notice.--A resident organization, resident
management corporation, or other resident-supported nonprofit
entity referred to in paragraph (1) may express interest in
purchasing property that is the subject of a disposition, as
described in paragraph (1), during the 30-day period
beginning on the date of notification of a proposed sale of
the property.
[[Page H4747]]
``(B) Sixty-day notice.--If an entity expresses written
interest in purchasing a property, as provided in
subparagraph (A), no disposition of the property shall occur
during the 60-day period beginning on the date of receipt of
that written notice, during which time that entity shall be
given the opportunity to obtain a firm commitment for
financing the purchase of the property.
``(d) Replacement Units.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, replacement housing units for public
housing units demolished in accordance with this section may
be built on the original public housing location or in the
same neighborhood as the original public housing location if
the number of those replacement units is fewer than the
number of units demolished.''.
(b) Homeownership Replacement Plan.--
(1) In general.--Section 304(g) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437aaa-3(g)), as amended by
section 1002(b) of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
for Additional Disaster Assistance, for Anti-terrorism
Initiatives, for Assistance in the Recovery from the Tragedy
that Occurred At Oklahoma City, and Rescissions Act, 1995, is
amended to read as follows:
``(g) [Reserved.]''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall be effective with respect to any plan for the
demolition, disposition, or conversion to homeownership of
public housing that is approved by the Secretary after
September 30, 1995.
(c) Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Act.--
The Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Act
shall not apply to activities under section 18 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937, as amended by this section.
SEC. 116. REPEAL OF FAMILY INVESTMENT CENTERS; VOUCHER SYSTEM
FOR PUBLIC HOUSING.
(a) In General.--Section 22 of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437t) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 22. VOUCHER SYSTEM FOR PUBLIC HOUSING.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Authorization.--A public housing agency may convert
any public housing project (or portion thereof) owned and
operated by the public housing agency to a system of tenant-
based assistance in accordance with this section.
``(2) Requirements.--In converting to a tenant-based system
of assistance under this section, the public housing agency
shall develop a conversion assessment and plan under
subsection (b) in consultation with the appropriate public
officials, with significant participation by the residents of
the project (or portion thereof), which assessment and plan
shall--
``(A) be consistent with and part of the public housing
agency plan; and
``(B) describe the conversion and future use or disposition
of the public housing project, including an impact analysis
on the affected community.
``(b) Conversion Assessment and Plan.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of the Public Housing Reform and Empowerment Act of
1995, each public housing agency shall assess the status of
each public housing project owned and operated by that public
housing agency, and shall submit to the Secretary an
assessment that includes--
``(A) 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 tenant-based
assistance under section 8 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 project proposed for conversion for the
remaining useful life of the project;
``(B) an analysis of the market value of the public housing
project proposed for conversion both before and after
rehabilitation, and before and after conversion;
``(C) an analysis of the rental market conditions with
respect to the likely success of tenant-based assistance
under section 8 in that market for the specific residents of
the public housing project proposed for conversion, including
an assessment of the availability of decent and safe
dwellings renting at or below the payment standard
established for tenant-based assistance under section 8 by
the public housing agency;
``(D) the impact of the conversion to a system of tenant-
based assistance under this section on the neighborhood in
which the public housing project is located; and
``(E) a plan that identifies actions, if any, that the
public housing agency would take with regard to converting
any public housing project or projects (or portions thereof)
of the public housing agency to a system of tenant-based
assistance.
``(2) Streamlined assessment.--At the discretion of the
Secretary or at the request of a public housing agency, the
Secretary may waive any or all of the requirements of
paragraph (1) or otherwise require a streamlined assessment
with respect to any public housing project or class of public
housing projects.
``(3) Implementation of conversion plan.--
``(A) In general.--A public housing agency may implement a
conversion plan only if the conversion assessment under this
section demonstrates that the conversion--
``(i) will not be more expensive than continuing to operate
the public housing project (or portion thereof) as public
housing; and
``(ii) will principally benefit the residents of the public
housing project (or portion thereof) to be converted, the
public housing agency, and the community.
``(B) Disapproval.--The Secretary shall disapprove a
conversion plan only if the plan is plainly inconsistent with
the conversion assessment under subsection (b) or if there is
reliable information and data available to the Secretary that
contradicts that conversion assessment.
``(c) Other Requirements.--To the extent approved by the
Secretary, the funds used by the public housing agency to
provide tenant-based assistance under section 8 shall be
added to the housing assistance payment contract administered
by--
``(1) the public housing agency; or
``(2) any entity administering the contract on behalf of
the public housing agency.
``(d) Inapplicability to Indian Housing.--This section does
not apply to any Indian housing authority.''.
(b) Savings Provision.--The amendment made by subsection
(a) does not affect any contract or other agreement entered
into under section 22 of the United States Housing Act of
1937, as that section existed on the day before the date of
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 117. REPEAL OF FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY; HOMEOWNERSHIP
OPPORTUNITIES.
(a) In General.--Section 23 of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437u) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 23. PUBLIC HOUSING HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES.
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a public housing agency may, in accordance with this
section--
``(1) sell any public housing unit in any public housing
project of the public housing agency to--
``(A) the low-income tenants of the public housing agency;
or
``(B) any organization serving as a conduit for sales to
those persons; and
``(2) provide assistance to public housing residents to
facilitate the ability of those residents to purchase a
principal residence.
``(b) Right of First Refusal.--In making any sale under
this section, the public housing agency shall initially offer
the public housing unit at issue to the tenant or tenants
occupying that unit, if any, or to an organization serving as
a conduit for sales to any such tenant.
``(c) Sale Prices, Terms, and Conditions.--Any sale under
this section may involve such prices, terms, and conditions
as the public housing agency may determine in accordance with
procedures set forth in the public housing agency plan.
``(d) Purchase Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--Each tenant that purchases a dwelling
unit under subsection (a) shall, as of the date on which the
purchase is made--
``(A) intend to occupy the property as a principal
residence; and
``(B) submit a written certification to the public housing
agency that such tenant will occupy the property as a
principal residence for a period of not less than 12 months
beginning on that date.
``(2) Recapture.--Except for good cause, as determined by a
public housing agency in the public housing agency plan, if,
during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which any
tenant acquires a public housing unit under this section,
that public housing unit is resold, the public housing agency
shall recapture 75 percent of the amount of any proceeds from
that resale that exceed the sum of--
``(A) the original sale price for the acquisition of the
property by the qualifying tenant;
``(B) the costs of any improvements made to the property
after the date on which the acquisition occurs; and
``(C) any closing costs incurred in connection with the
acquisition.
``(e) Protection of Nonpurchasing Tenants.--If a public
housing tenant does not exercise the right of first refusal
under subsection (b) with respect to the public housing unit
in which the tenant resides, the public housing agency
shall--
``(1) ensure that either another public housing unit or
rental assistance under section 8 is made available to the
tenant; and
``(2) provide for the payment of the reasonable relocation
expenses of the tenant.
``(f) Net Proceeds.--
``(1) In general.--The net proceeds of any sales under this
section remaining after payment of all costs of the sale and
any unassumed, unpaid indebtedness owed in connection with
the dwelling units sold under this section unless waived by
the Secretary, shall be used for purposes relating to low-
income housing and in accordance with the public housing
agency plan.
``(2) Indian housing.--The net proceeds described in
paragraph (1) may be used by Indian housing authorities for
housing for families whose incomes exceed the income levels
established under this title for low-income families.
``(g) Homeownership Assistance.--From amounts distributed
to a public housing agency under section 9, or from other
income earned by the public housing agency, the public
housing agency may provide assistance to public housing
residents to facilitate the ability of those residents to
purchase a principal residence, including a residence other
than a residence located in a public housing project.''.
[[Page H4748]]
(b) Conforming Amendments.--The United States Housing Act
of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 8(y)(7)(A)--
(A) by striking ``, (ii)'' and inserting ``, and (ii)'';
and
(B) by striking ``, and (iii)'' and all that follows before
the period at the end; and
(2) in section 25(l)(2)--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``, consistent with
the objectives of the program under section 23,''; and
(B) by striking the second sentence.
(c) Savings Provision.--The amendments made by this section
do not affect any contract or other agreement entered into
under section 23 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as
that section existed on the day before the date of enactment
of this Act.
SEC. 118. REVITALIZING SEVERELY DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING.
Section 24 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437v) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 24. REVITALIZING SEVERELY DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING.
``(a) In General.--To the extent provided in advance in
appropriations Acts, the Secretary may make grants to public
housing agencies for the purposes of--
``(1) enabling the demolition of obsolete public housing
projects or portions thereof;
``(2) revitalizing sites (including remaining public
housing units) on which such public housing projects are
located;
``(3) the provision of replacement housing, which will
avoid or lessen concentrations of very low-income families;
and
``(4) the provision of tenant-based assistance under
section 8 for use as replacement housing.
``(b) Competition.--The Secretary shall make grants under
this section on the basis of a competition, which shall be
based on such factors as--
``(1) the need for additional resources for addressing a
severely distressed public housing project;
``(2) the need for affordable housing in the community;
``(3) the supply of other housing available and affordable
to a family receiving tenant-based assistance under section
8; and
``(4) the local impact of the proposed revitalization
program.
``(c) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may impose such
terms and conditions on recipients of grants under this
section as the Secretary determines to be appropriate to
carry out the purposes of this section, except that such
terms and conditions shall be similar to the terms and
conditions of either--
``(1) the urban revitalization demonstration program
authorized under the Departments of Veterans Affairs and
Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Acts; or
``(2) section 24 of the United States Housing Act of 1937,
as such section existed before the date of enactment of the
Public Housing Reform and Empower Act of 1995.
``(d) Alternative Management.--The Secretary may require
any recipient of a grant under this section to make
arrangements with an entity other than the public housing
agency to carry out the purposes for which the grant was
awarded, if the Secretary determines that such action is
necessary for the timely and effective achievement of the
purposes for which the grant was awarded.
``(e) Inapplicability to Indian Housing.--This section does
not apply to any Indian housing authority.
``(f) Sunset.--No grant may be made under this section on
or after October 1, 1998.''.
SEC. 119. MIXED-INCOME AND MIXED-OWNERSHIP PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--The United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``SEC. 28. MIXED-INCOME AND MIXED-OWNERSHIP PROJECTS.
``(a) In General.--A public housing agency may own,
operate, assist, or otherwise participate in one or more
mixed-income projects in accordance with this section.
``(b) Requirements.--
``(1) Mixed-income project.--For purposes of this section,
the term `mixed-income project' means a project that meets
the requirements of paragraph (2) and that is occupied both
by one or more very low-income families and by one or more
families that are not very low-income families.
``(2) Structure of projects.--Each mixed-income project
shall be developed--
``(A) in a manner that ensures that units are made
available in the project, by master contract, individual
lease, or equity interest for occupancy by eligible families
identified by the public housing agency for a period of not
less than 20 years;
``(B) in a manner that ensures that the number of public
housing units bears approximately the same proportion to the
total number of units in the mixed-income project as the
value of the total financial commitment provided by the
public housing agency bears to the value of the total
financial commitment in the project, or shall not be less
than the number of units that could have been developed under
the conventional public housing program with the assistance;
and
``(C) in accordance with such other requirements as the
Secretary may prescribe by regulation.
``(3) Types of projects.--The term `mixed-income project'
includes a project that is developed--
``(A) by a public housing agency or by an entity affiliated
with a public housing agency;
``(B) by a partnership, a limited liability company, or
other entity in which the public housing agency (or an entity
affiliated with a public housing agency) is a general
partner, managing member, or otherwise participates in the
activities of that entity;
``(C) by any entity that grants to the public housing
agency the option to purchase the public housing project
during the 20-year period beginning on the date of initial
occupancy of the public housing project in accordance with
section 42(l)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
``(D) in accordance with such other terms and conditions as
the Secretary may prescribe by regulation.
``(c) Taxation.--
``(1) In general.--A public housing agency may elect to
have all public housing units in a mixed-income project
subject to local real estate taxes, except that such units
shall be eligible at the discretion of the public housing
agency for the taxing requirements under section 6(d).
``(2) Low-income housing tax credit.--With respect to any
unit in a mixed-income project that is assisted pursuant to
the low-income housing tax credit under section 42 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the rents charged to the
tenants may be set at levels not to exceed the amounts
allowable under that section.
``(d) Restriction.--No assistance provided under section 9
shall be used by a public housing agency in direct support of
any unit rented to a family that is not a low-income family,
except that this subsection does not apply to the Mutual Help
Homeownership Program authorized under section 202 of this
Act.
``(e) Effect of Certain Contract Terms.--If an entity that
owns or operates a mixed-income project under this section
enters into a contract with a public housing agency, the
terms of which obligate the entity to operate and maintain a
specified number of units in the project as public housing
units in accordance with the requirements of this Act for the
period required by law, such contractual terms may provide
that, if, as a result of a reduction in appropriations under
section 9, or any other change in applicable law, the public
housing agency is unable to fulfill its contractual
obligations with respect to those public housing units, that
entity may deviate, under procedures and requirements
developed through regulations by the Secretary, from
otherwise applicable restrictions under this Act regarding
rents, income eligibility, and other areas of public housing
management with respect to a portion or all of those public
housing units, to the extent necessary to preserve the
viability of those units while maintaining the low-income
character thereof to the maximum extent practicable.''.
(b) Regulations.--The Secretary shall issue such
regulations as may be necessary to promote the development of
mixed-income projects, as that term is defined in section 28
of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as added by this
Act.
SEC. 120. CONVERSION OF DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING TO TENANT-
BASED ASSISTANCE.
Title I of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C.
1437 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``SEC. 29. CONVERSION OF DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING TO TENANT-
BASED ASSISTANCE.
``(a) Identification of Units.--To the extent approved in
advance in appropriations Acts, each public housing agency
shall identify all public housing projects of the public
housing agency--
``(1) that are on the same or contiguous sites;
``(2) that the public housing agency determines to be
distressed, which determination shall be made in accordance
with guidelines established by the Secretary, which
guidelines shall be based on the criteria established in the
Final Report of the National Commission on Severely
Distressed Public Housing (August 1992);
``(3) identified as distressed housing under paragraph (2)
for which the public housing agency cannot assure the long-
term viability as public housing through reasonable
modernization expenses, density reduction, achievement of a
broader range of family income, or other measures; and
``(4) for which the estimated cost, during the remaining
useful life of the project, of continued operation and
modernization as public housing exceeds the estimated cost,
during the remaining useful life of the project, of providing
tenant-based assistance under section 8 for all families in
occupancy, based on appropriate indicators of cost (such as
the percentage of total development costs required for
modernization).
``(b) Consultation.--Each public housing agency shall
consult with the appropriate public housing tenants and the
appropriate unit of general local government in identifying
any public housing projects under subsection (a).
``(c) Removal of Units From the Inventories of Public
Housing Agencies.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Development of plan.--Each public housing agency
shall develop and, to the extent provided in advance in
appropriations Acts, carry out a 5-year plan in conjunction
with the Secretary for the removal of public housing units
identified under subsection (a)
[[Page H4749]]
from the inventory of the public housing agency and the
annual contributions contract.
``(B) Approval of plan.--The plan required under
subparagraph (A) shall--
``(i) be included as part of the public housing agency
plan;
``(ii) be certified by the relevant local official to be in
accordance with the comprehensive housing affordability
strategy under title I of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1992; and
``(iii) include a description of any disposition and
demolition plan for the public housing units.
``(2) Extensions.--The Secretary may extend the 5-year
deadline described in paragraph (1) by not more than an
additional 5 years if the Secretary makes a determination
that the deadline is impracticable.
``(d) Conversion to Tenant-Based Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--With respect to any public housing
project that has not received a grant for assistance under
the urban revitalization demonstration program authorized
under the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and
Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations
Acts or under section 24 of the United States Housing Act of
1937, the Secretary shall make authority available to a
public housing agency to provide assistance under this Act to
families residing in any public housing project that is
removed from the inventory of the public housing agency and
the annual contributions contract pursuant to this section.
``(2) Plan requirements.--Each plan under subsection (c)
shall require the agency to--
``(A) notify families residing in the public housing
project, consistent with any guidelines issued by the
Secretary governing such notifications, that--
``(i) the public housing project will be removed from the
inventory of the public housing agency; and
``(ii) the families displaced by such action will receive
tenant-based or project-based assistance or occupancy in a
unit operated or assisted by the public housing agency;
``(B) provide any necessary counseling for families
displaced by such action; and
``(C) provide any reasonable relocation expenses for
families displaced by such action.
``(e) Removal by Secretary.--The Secretary shall take
appropriate actions to ensure removal of any public housing
project identified under subsection (a) from the inventory of
a public housing agency, if the public housing agency fails
to adequately develop a plan under subsection (c) with
respect to that project, or fails to adequately implement
such plan in accordance with the terms of the plan.
``(f) Administration.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may require a public
housing agency to provide to the Secretary or to public
housing tenants such information as the Secretary considers
to be necessary for the administration of this section.
``(2) Applicability of section 18.--Section 18 does not
apply to the demolition of public housing projects removed
from the inventory of the public housing agency under this
section.
``(g) Inapplicability to Indian Housing.--This section does
not apply to any Indian housing authority.''.
SEC. 121. PUBLIC HOUSING MORTGAGES AND SECURITY INTERESTS.
Title I of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C.
1437 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``SEC. 30. PUBLIC HOUSING MORTGAGES AND SECURITY INTERESTS.
``(a) General Authorization.--The Secretary may, upon such
terms and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe,
authorize a public housing agency to mortgage or otherwise
grant a security interest in any public housing project or
other property of the public housing agency.
``(b) Terms and Conditions.--
``(1) Criteria for approval.--In making any authorization
under subsection (a), the Secretary may consider--
``(A) the ability of the public housing agency to use the
proceeds of the mortgage or security interest for low-income
housing uses;
``(B) the ability of the public housing agency to make
payments on the mortgage or security interest; and
``(C) such other criteria as the Secretary may specify.
``(2) Terms and conditions of mortgages and security
interests obtained.--Each mortgage or security interest
granted under this section shall be--
``(A) for a term that--
``(i) is consistent with the terms of private loans in the
market area in which the public housing project or property
at issue is located; and
``(ii) does not exceed 30 years; and
``(B) subject to conditions that are consistent with the
conditions to which private loans in the market area in which
the subject project or other property is located are subject.
``(3) No full faith and credit.--No action taken under this
section shall result in any liability to the Federal
Government.''.
SEC. 122. LINKING SERVICES TO PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENTS.
Title I of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C.
1437 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``SEC. 31. SERVICES FOR PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENTS.
``(a) In General.--To the extent provided in advance in
appropriations Acts, the Secretary may make grants to public
housing agencies (including Indian housing authorities) on
behalf of public housing residents, or directly to resident
management corporations, resident councils, or resident
organizations (including nonprofit entities supported by
residents), for the purposes of providing a program of
supportive services and resident empowerment activities to
assist public housing residents in becoming economically
self-sufficient.
``(b) Eligible Activities.--Grantees under this section may
use such amounts only for activities on or near the public
housing agency or public housing project that are designed to
promote the self-sufficiency of public housing residents,
including activities relating to--
``(1) physical improvements to a public housing project in
order to provide space for supportive services for residents;
``(2) the provision of service coordinators;
``(3) the provision of services related to work readiness,
including academic skills, job training, job search skills,
tutoring, adult literacy, transportation, and child care,
except that grants received under this section shall not
comprise more than 50 percent of the costs of providing such
services;
``(4) resident management activities; and
``(5) other activities designed to improve the economic
self-sufficiency of residents.
``(c) Funding Distribution.--
``(1) In general.--Except for amounts provided under
subsection (d), the Secretary may distribute amounts made
available under this section on the basis of a competition or
a formula, as appropriate.
``(2) Factors for distribution.--Factors for distribution
under paragraph (1) shall include--
``(A) the demonstrated capacity of the applicant to carry
out a program of supportive services or resident empowerment
activities; and
``(B) the ability of the applicant to leverage additional
resources for the provision of services.
``(d) Funding for Resident Councils.--Of amounts
appropriated for activities under this section, not less than
$25,000,000 shall be provided directly to resident councils,
resident organizations, and resident management
corporations.''.
SEC. 123. APPLICABILITY TO INDIAN HOUSING.
In accordance with section 201(b)(2) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937, except as otherwise provided in this
Act, this title and the amendments made by this title shall
apply to public housing developed or operated pursuant to a
contract between the Secretary and an Indian housing
authority, as that term is defined in section 3(b) of the
United States Housing Act of 1937.
TITLE II--SECTION 8 RENTAL ASSISTANCE
SEC. 201. MERGER OF THE CERTIFICATE AND VOUCHER PROGRAMS.
Section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437f(o)) is amended to read as follows:
``(o) Voucher Program.--
``(1) Payment standard.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may provide assistance to
public housing agencies for tenant-based assistance using a
payment standard established in accordance with subparagraph
(B). The payment standard shall be used to determine the
monthly assistance that may be paid for any family, as
provided in paragraph (2).
``(B) Establishment of payment standard.--The payment
standard shall not exceed 120 percent of the fair market
rental established under subsection (c) and shall be not less
than 90 percent of that fair market rental.
``(C) Set-aside.--The Secretary may set aside not more than
5 percent of the budget authority available under this
subsection as an adjustment pool. The Secretary shall use
amounts in the adjustment pool to make adjusted payments to
public housing agencies under subparagraph (A), to ensure
continued affordability, if the Secretary determines that
additional assistance for such purpose is necessary, based on
documentation submitted by a public housing agency.
``(D) Approval.--The Secretary may require a public housing
agency to submit the payment standard of the public housing
agency to the Secretary for approval.
``(E) Review.--The Secretary--
``(i) shall monitor rent burdens and review any payment
standard that results in a significant percentage of the
families occupying units of any size paying more than 30
percent of adjusted income for rent; and
``(ii) may require a public housing agency to modify the
payment standard of the public housing agency based on the
results of that review.
``(2) Amount of monthly assistance payment.--
``(A) Families receiving tenant-based assistance; rent does
not exceed payment standard.--For a family receiving tenant-
based assistance under this title, if the rent for that
family (including the amount allowed for tenant-paid
utilities) does not exceed the payment standard established
under paragraph (1), the monthly assistance payment to that
family shall be equal to the amount by which the rent exceeds
the greatest of the following amounts, rounded to the nearest
dollar:
``(i) Thirty percent of the monthly adjusted income of the
family.
``(ii) Ten percent of the monthly income of the family.
``(iii) If the family is receiving payments for welfare
assistance from a public agency
[[Page H4750]]
and a part of those payments, adjusted in accordance with the
actual housing costs of the family, is specifically
designated by that agency to meet the housing costs of the
family, the portion of those payments that is so designated.
``(B) Families receiving tenant-based assistance; rent
exceeds payment standard.--For a family receiving tenant-
based assistance under this title, if the rent for that
family (including the amount allowed for tenant-paid
utilities) exceeds the payment standard established under
paragraph (1), the monthly assistance payment to that family
shall be equal to the amount by which the applicable payment
standard exceeds the greatest of the following amounts,
rounded to the nearest dollar:
``(i) Thirty percent of the monthly adjusted income of the
family.
``(ii) Ten percent of the monthly income of the family.
``(iii) If the family is receiving payments for welfare
assistance from a public agency and a part of those payments,
adjusted in accordance with the actual housing costs of the
family, is specifically designated by that agency to meet the
housing costs of the family, the portion of those payments
that is so designated.
``(C) Families receiving project-based assistance.--For a
family receiving project-based assistance under this title,
the rent that the family is required to pay shall be
determined in accordance with section 3(a)(1), and the amount
of the housing assistance payment shall be determined in
accordance with subsection (c)(3) of this section.
``(3) Forty percent limit.--At the time a family initially
receives tenant-based assistance under this title with
respect to any dwelling unit, the total amount that a family
may be required to pay for rent may not exceed 40 percent of
the monthly adjusted income of the family.
``(4) Eligible families.--At the time a family initially
receives assistance under this subsection, a family shall
qualify as--
``(A) a very low-income family;
``(B) a family previously assisted under this title;
``(C) a low-income family that meets eligibility criteria
specified by the public housing agency;
``(D) a family that qualifies to receive a voucher in
connection with a homeownership program approved under title
IV of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act;
or
``(E) a family that qualifies to receive a voucher under
section 223 or 226 of the Low-Income Housing Preservation and
Resident Homeownership Act of 1990.
``(5) Annual review of family income.--Each public housing
agency shall, not less frequently than annually, conduct a
review of the family income of each family receiving
assistance under this subsection.
``(6) Selection of families.--
``(A) In general.--Each public housing agency may establish
local preferences consistent with the public housing agency
plan submitted by the public housing agency under section 5A.
``(B) Eviction for drug-related activity.--Any individual
or family evicted from housing assisted under this subsection
by reason of drug-related criminal activity (as defined in
subsection (f)(5)) shall not be eligible for housing
assistance under this title during the 3-year period
beginning on the date of such eviction, unless the evicted
tenant successfully completes a rehabilitation program
approved by the public housing agency (which shall include a
waiver for any member of the family of an individual
prohibited from receiving assistance under this title whom
the public housing agency determines clearly did not
participate in and had no knowledge of that criminal
activity, or if the circumstances leading to the eviction no
longer exist).
``(C) Selection of tenants.--The selection of tenants shall
be made by the owner of the dwelling unit, subject to the
annual contributions contract between the Secretary and the
public housing agency.
``(7) Lease.--Each housing assistance payment contract
entered into by the public housing agency and the owner of a
dwelling unit--
``(A) shall provide that the screening and selection of
families for those units shall be the function of the owner;
``(B) shall provide that the lease between the tenant and
the owner shall be for a term of not less than 1 year, except
that the public housing agency may approve a shorter term for
an initial lease between the tenant and the dwelling unit
owner if the public housing agency determines that such
shorter term would improve housing opportunities for the
tenant;
``(C) except as otherwise provided by the public housing
agency, may provide for a termination of the tenancy of a
tenant assisted under this subsection after 1 year;
``(D) shall provide that the dwelling unit owner shall
offer leases to tenants assisted under this subsection that--
``(i) are in a standard form used in the locality by the
dwelling unit owner; and
``(ii) contain terms and conditions that--
``(I) are consistent with State, tribal, and local law; and
``(II) apply generally to tenants in the property who are
not assisted under this section;
``(E) shall provide that the dwelling unit owner may not
terminate the tenancy of any person assisted under this
subsection during the term of a lease that meets the
requirements of this section unless the owner determines, on
the same basis and in the same manner as would apply to a
tenant in the property who does not receive assistance under
this subsection, that--
``(i) the tenant has committed a serious violation of the
terms and conditions of the lease;
``(ii) the tenant has violated applicable Federal, State,
or local law; or
``(iii) other good cause for termination of the tenancy
exists; and
``(F) shall provide that any termination of tenancy under
this subsection shall be preceded by the provision of written
notice by the owner to the tenant specifying the grounds for
that action, and any relief shall be consistent with
applicable State, tribal, and local law.
``(8) Inspection of units by public housing agencies.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
for each dwelling unit for which a housing assistance payment
contract is established under this subsection, the public
housing agency shall--
``(i) inspect the unit before any assistance payment is
made to determine whether the dwelling unit meets housing
quality standards for decent and safe housing established--
``(I) by the Secretary for purposes of this subsection; or
``(II) by local housing codes or by codes adopted by public
housing agencies that--
``(aa) meet or exceed housing quality standards; and
``(bb) do not severely restrict housing choice; and
``(ii) make periodic inspections during the contract term.
``(B) Leasing of units owned by public housing agency.--If
an eligible family assisted under this subsection leases a
dwelling unit that is owned by a public housing agency
administering assistance under this subsection, the Secretary
shall require the unit of general local government, or
another entity approved by the Secretary, to make inspections
and rent determinations as required by this paragraph.
``(9) Expedited inspection procedures.--
``(A) Demonstration project.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of the Public Housing Reform and
Empowerment Act of 1995, the Secretary shall establish a
demonstration project to identify efficient procedures to
determine whether units meet housing quality standards for
decent and safe housing established by the Secretary.
``(B) Procedures included.--The demonstration project shall
include the development of procedures to be followed in any
case in which a family receiving tenant-based assistance
under this subsection is moving into a dwelling unit, or in
which a family notifies the public housing agency that a
dwelling unit, in which the family no longer resides, fails
to meet housing quality standards. The Secretary shall also
establish procedures for the expedited repair and inspection
of units that do not meet housing quality standards.
``(C) Recommendations.--Not later than 2 years after the
date on which the demonstration under this paragraph is
implemented, the Secretary shall submit a report to the
Congress, which shall include an analysis of the
demonstration and any recommendations for changes to the
demonstration.
``(10) Vacated units.--If a family vacates a dwelling unit,
no assistance payment may be made under this subsection for
the dwelling unit after the month during which the unit was
vacated.
``(11) Rent.--
``(A) Reasonable market rent.--The rent for dwelling units
for which a housing assistance payment contract is
established under this subsection shall be reasonable in
comparison with rents charged for comparable dwelling units
in the private, unassisted, local market.
``(B) Negotiated rent.--A public housing agency shall, at
the request of a family receiving tenant-based assistance
under this subsection, assist that family in negotiating a
reasonable rent with a dwelling unit owner. A public housing
agency shall review the rent for a unit under consideration
by the family (and all rent increases for units under lease
by the family) to determine whether the rent (or rent
increase) requested by the owner is reasonable. If a public
housing agency determines that the rent (or rent increase)
for a dwelling unit is not reasonable, the public housing
agency shall not make housing assistance payments to the
owner under this subsection with respect to that unit.
``(C) Units exempt from local rent control.--If a dwelling
unit for which a housing assistance payment contract is
established under this subsection is exempt from local rent
control provisions during the term of that contract, the rent
for that unit shall be reasonable in comparison with other
units in the market area that are exempt from local rent
control provisions.
``(D) Timely payments.--Each public housing agency shall
make timely payment of any amounts due to a dwelling unit
owner under this subsection. The housing assistance payment
contract between the owner and the public housing agency may
provide for penalties for the late payment of amounts due
under the contract, which shall be imposed on the public
housing agency in accordance with generally accepted
practices in the local housing market.
[[Page H4751]]
``(E) Penalties.--Unless otherwise authorized by the
Secretary, each public housing agency shall pay any penalties
from administrative fees collected by the public housing
agency, except that no penalty shall be imposed if the late
payment is due to factors that the Secretary determines are
beyond the control of the public housing agency.
``(12) Manufactured housing.--
``(A) In general.--A public housing agency may make
assistance payments in accordance with this subsection on
behalf of a family that utilizes a manufactured home as a
principal place of residence. Such payments may be made for
the rental of the real property on which the manufactured
home owned by any such family is located.
``(B) Rent calculation.--
``(i) Charges included.--For assistance pursuant to this
paragraph, the rent for the space on which a manufactured
home is located and with respect to which assistance payments
are to be made shall include maintenance and management
charges and tenant-paid utilities.
``(ii) Payment standard.--The public housing agency shall
establish a payment standard for the purpose of determining
the monthly assistance that may be paid for any family under
this paragraph. The payment standard may not exceed an amount
approved or established by the Secretary.
``(iii) Monthly assistance payment.--The monthly assistance
payment under this paragraph shall be determined in
accordance with paragraph (2).
``(13) Contract for assistance payments.--
``(A) In general.--If the Secretary enters into an annual
contributions contract under this subsection with a public
housing agency pursuant to which the public housing agency
will enter into a housing assistance payment contract with
respect to an existing structure under this subsection--
``(i) the housing assistance payment contract may not be
attached to the structure unless the owner agrees to
rehabilitate or newly construct the structure other than with
assistance under this Act, and otherwise complies with this
section; and
``(ii) the public housing agency may approve a housing
assistance payment contract for such existing structure for
not more than 15 percent of the funding available for tenant-
based assistance administered by the public housing agency
under this section.
``(B) Extension of contract term.--In the case of a housing
assistance payment contract that applies to a structure under
this paragraph, a public housing agency shall enter into a
contract with the owner, contingent upon the future
availability of appropriated funds for the purpose of
renewing expiring contracts for assistance payments, as
provided in appropriations Acts, to extend the term of the
underlying housing assistance payment contract for such
period as the Secretary determines to be appropriate to
achieve long-term affordability of the housing. The contract
shall obligate the owner to have such extensions of the
underlying housing assistance payment contract accepted by
the owner and the successors in interest of the owner.
``(C) Rent calculation.--For project-based assistance under
this paragraph, housing assistance payment contracts shall
establish rents and provide for rent adjustments in
accordance with subsection (c).
``(D) Adjusted rents.--With respect to rents adjusted under
this paragraph--
``(i) the adjusted rent for any unit shall not exceed the
rent for a comparable unassisted unit of similar quality,
type, and age in the market area; and
``(ii) the provisions of subsection (c)(2)(A) do not apply.
``(14) Inapplicability to tenant-based assistance.--
Subsection (c) does not apply to tenant-based assistance
under this subsection.
``(15) Homeownership option.--
``(A) In general.--A public housing agency providing
assistance under this subsection may, at the option of the
agency, provide assistance for homeownership under subsection
(y).
``(B) Alternative administration.--A public housing agency
may contract with a nonprofit organization to administer a
homeownership program under subsection (y).
``(16) Indian housing programs.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, in carrying out this section, the Secretary
shall establish such separate formulas and programs as may be
necessary to carry out housing programs for Indians under
this section.''.
SEC. 202. REPEAL OF FEDERAL PREFERENCES.
(a) Section 8 Existing and Moderate Rehabilitation.--
Section 8(d)(1)(A) of the United States Housing Act of 1937
(42 U.S.C. 1437f(d)(1)(A)) is amended to read as follows:
``(A) the selection of tenants shall be the function of the
owner, subject to the annual contributions contract between
the Secretary and the agency, except that with respect to the
certificate and moderate rehabilitation programs only, for
the purpose of selecting families to be assisted, the public
housing agency may establish, after public notice and an
opportunity for public comment, a written system of
preferences for selection that are not inconsistent with the
comprehensive housing affordability strategy for the
jurisdiction in which the project is located, in accordance
with title I of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act;''.
(b) Section 8 New Construction and Substantial
Rehabilitation.--
(1) Repeal.--Section 545(c) of the Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is
amended to read as follows:
``(c) [Reserved.]''.
(2) Prohibition.--The provisions of section 8(e)(2) of the
United States Housing Act of 1937, as in existence on the day
before October 1, 1983, that require tenant selection
preferences shall not apply with respect to--
(A) housing constructed or substantially rehabilitated
pursuant to assistance provided under section 8(b)(2) of the
United States Housing Act of 1937, as in existence on the day
before October 1, 1983; or
(B) projects financed under section 202 of the Housing Act
of 1959, as in existence on the day before the date of
enactment of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act.
(c) Rent Supplements.--Section 101(k) of the Housing and
Urban Development Act of 1965 (12 U.S.C. 1701s(k)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(k) [Reserved.]''.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) United states housing act of 1937.--The United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.) is amended--
(A) in section 6(o), by striking ``preference rules
specified in'' and inserting ``written selection criteria
established pursuant to'';
(B) in section 7(a)(2), by striking ``according to the
preferences for occupancy under'' and inserting ``in
accordance with the written selection criteria established
pursuant to'';
(C) in section 7(a)(3), by striking ``who qualify for
preferences for occupancy under'' and inserting ``who meet
the written selection criteria established pursuant to'';
(D) in section 8(d)(2)(A), by striking the last sentence;
(E) in section 8(d)(2)(H), by striking ``Notwithstanding
subsection (d)(1)(A)(i), an'' and inserting ``An''; and
(F) in section 16(c), in the second sentence, by striking
``the system of preferences established by the agency
pursuant to section 6(c)(4)(A)(ii)'' and inserting ``the
written selection criteria established by the public housing
agency pursuant to section 6(c)(4)(A)''.
(2) Cranston-gonzalez national affordable housing act.--The
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C.
12704 et seq.) is amended--
(A) in section 455(a)(2)(D)(iii), by striking ``would
qualify for a preference under'' and inserting ``meet the
written selection criteria established pursuant to''; and
(B) in section 522(f)(6)(B), by striking ``any preferences
for such assistance under section 8(d)(1)(A)(i)'' and
inserting ``the written selection criteria established
pursuant to section 8(d)(1)(A)''.
(3) Low-income housing preservation and resident
homeownership act of 1990.--The second sentence of section
226(b)(6)(B) of the Low-Income Housing Preservation and
Resident Homeownership Act of 1990 (12 U.S.C. 4116(b)(6)(B))
is amended by striking ``requirement for giving preferences
to certain categories of eligible families under'' and
inserting ``written selection criteria established pursuant
to''.
(4) Housing and community development act of 1992.--Section
655 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (42
U.S.C. 13615) is amended by striking ``preferences for
occupancy'' and all that follows before the period at the end
and inserting ``selection criteria established by the owner
to elderly families according to such written selection
criteria, and to near-elderly families according to such
written selection criteria, respectively''.
(5) References in other law.--Any reference in any Federal
law other than any provision of any law amended by paragraphs
(1) through (5) of this subsection or section 201 to the
preferences for assistance under section 6(c)(4)(A)(i),
8(d)(1)(A)(i), or 8(o)(3)(B) of the United States Housing Act
of 1937, as those sections existed on the day before the
effective date of this title, shall be considered to refer to
the written selection criteria established pursuant to
section 6(c)(4)(A), 8(d)(1)(A), or 8(o)(6)(A), respectively,
of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended by this
subsection and section 201 of this Act.
SEC. 203. PORTABILITY.
Section 8(r) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437f(r)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``assisted under subsection (b) or (o)''
and inserting ``receiving tenant-based assistance under
subsection (o)''; and
(B) by striking ``the same State'' and all that follows
before the semicolon and inserting ``any area in which a
program is being administered under this section'';
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking ``(b) or''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The
Secretary shall establish procedures for the compensation of
public housing agencies that issue vouchers to families that
move into or out of the jurisdiction of the public housing
agency under portability procedures. The Secretary may
reserve amounts available for assistance under subsection (o)
to compensate those public housing agencies.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Lease violations.--A family may not receive a voucher
from a public housing agency and move to another jurisdiction
[[Page H4752]]
under the tenant-based assistance program if the family has
moved out of the assisted dwelling unit of the family in
violation of a lease.''.
SEC. 204. LEASING TO VOUCHER HOLDERS.
Section 8(t) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437f(t)) is amended to read as follows:
``(t) [Reserved.]''.
SEC. 205. HOMEOWNERSHIP OPTION.
Section 8(y) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437f(y)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting before the semicolon
``, or owns or is acquiring shares in a cooperative'';
(2) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``(i) participates''
and all that follows through ``(ii) demonstrates'' and
inserting ``demonstrates'';
(3) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) Determination of amount of assistance.--
``(A) Monthly expenses do not exceed payment standard.--If
the monthly homeownership expenses, as determined in
accordance with requirements established by the Secretary, do
not exceed the payment standard, the monthly assistance
payment shall be the amount by which the homeownership
expenses exceed the highest of the following amounts, rounded
to the nearest dollar:
``(i) Thirty percent of the monthly adjusted income of the
family.
``(ii) Ten percent of the monthly income of the family.
``(iii) If the family is receiving payments for welfare
assistance from a public agency, and a portion of those
payments, adjusted in accordance with the actual housing
costs of the family, is specifically designated by that
agency to meet the housing costs of the family, the portion
of those payments that is so designated.
``(B) Monthly expenses exceed payment standard.--If the
monthly homeownership expenses, as determined in accordance
with requirements established by the Secretary, exceed the
payment standard, the monthly assistance payment shall be the
amount by which the applicable payment standard exceeds the
highest of the following amounts, rounded to the nearest
dollar:
``(i) Thirty percent of the monthly adjusted income of the
family.
``(ii) Ten percent of the monthly income of the family.
``(iii) If the family is receiving payments for welfare
assistance from a public agency and a part of those payments,
adjusted in accordance with the actual housing costs of the
family, is specifically designated by that agency to meet the
housing costs of the family, the portion of those payments
that is so designated.'';
(4) by striking paragraphs (3) through (5); and
(5) by redesignating paragraphs (6) through (8) as
paragraphs (3) through (5), respectively.
SEC. 206. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Contract Provisions and Requirements.--Section
6(p)(1)(B) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437d(p)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``holding
certificates and vouchers'' and inserting ``receiving tenant-
based assistance''.
(b) Lower Income Housing Assistance.--Section 8 of the
United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking the second and third
sentences;
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Rental
Certificates and''; and
(B) in the first undesignated paragraph--
(i) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary''; and
(ii) by striking the second sentence;
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by striking ``(A)''; and
(ii) by striking subparagraph (B);
(B) in the first sentence of paragraph (4), by striking
``or by a family that qualifies to receive'' and all that
follows through ``1990'';
(C) by striking paragraph (5) and redesignating paragraph
(6) as paragraph (5);
(D) by striking paragraph (7) and redesignating paragraphs
(8) through (10) as paragraphs (6) through (8), respectively;
(E) in paragraph (6), as redesignated, by inserting
``(other than a contract under section 8(o))'' after
``section'';
(F) in paragraph (7), as redesignated, by striking ``(but
not less than 90 days in the case of housing certificates or
vouchers under subsection (b) or (o))'' and inserting ``,
other than a contract under subsection (o)''; and
(G) in paragraph (8), as redesignated, by striking
``housing certificates or vouchers under subsection (b) or
(o)'' and inserting ``tenant-based assistance under this
section'';
(4) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking ``on or near such
premises''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking the third sentence and
all that follows through the end of the subparagraph; and
(ii) by striking subparagraphs (B) through (E) and
redesignating subparagraphs (F) through (H) as subparagraphs
(B) through (D), respectively;
``(B) [Reserved.]'';
(5) in subsection (f)--
(A) in paragraph (6), by striking ``(d)(2)'' and inserting
``(o)(11)''; and
(B) in paragraph (7)--
(i) by striking ``(b) or''; and
(ii) by inserting before the period the following: ``and
that provides for the eligible family to select suitable
housing and to move to other suitable housing'';
(6) by striking subsection (j) and inserting the following:
``(j) [Reserved.]'';
(7) by striking subsection (n) and inserting the following:
``(n) [Reserved.]'';
(8) in subsection (q)--
(A) in the first sentence of paragraph (1), by striking
``and housing voucher programs under subsections (b) and
(o)'' and inserting ``program under this section'';
(B) in paragraph (2)(A)(i), by striking ``and housing
voucher programs under subsections (b) and (o)'' and
inserting ``program under this section''; and
(C) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``and housing voucher
programs under subsections (b) and (o)'' and inserting
``program under this section'';
(9) in subsection (u), by striking ``certificates or'' each
place that term appears; and
(10) in subsection (x)(2), by striking ``housing
certificate assistance'' and inserting ``tenant-based
assistance''.
(c) Public Housing Homeownership and Management
Opportunities.--Section 21(b)(3) of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437s(b)(3)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``(at the option of
the family) a certificate under section 8(b)(1) or a housing
voucher under section 8(o)'' and inserting ``tenant-based
assistance under section 8''; and
(2) by striking the second sentence.
(d) Documentation of Excessive Rent Burdens.--Section
550(b) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing
Act (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``assisted under the
certificate and voucher programs established'' and inserting
``receiving tenant-based assistance'';
(2) in the first sentence of paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``, for each of the certificate program and
the voucher program'' and inserting ``for the tenant-based
assistance under section 8''; and
(B) by striking ``participating in the program'' and
inserting ``receiving tenant-based assistance''; and
(3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``assistance under the
certificate or voucher program'' and inserting ``tenant-based
assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act
of 1937''.
(e) Grants for Community Residences and Services.--Section
861(b)(1)(D) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12910(b)(1)(D)) is amended by striking
``certificates or vouchers'' and inserting ``assistance''.
(f) Section 8 Certificates and Vouchers.--Section 931 of
the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42
U.S.C. 1437c note) is amended by striking ``assistance under
the certificate and voucher programs under sections 8(b) and
(o) of such Act'' and inserting ``tenant-based assistance
under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937''.
(g) Assistance for Displaced Tenants.--Section 223(a) of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 (12 U.S.C.
4113(a)) is amended by striking ``assistance under the
certificate and voucher programs under sections 8(b) and
8(o)'' and inserting ``tenant-based assistance under section
8''.
(h) Rural Housing Preservation Grants.--Section 533(a) of
the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490m(a)) is amended in
the second sentence by striking ``assistance payments as
provided by section 8(o)'' and inserting ``tenant-based
assistance as provided under section 8''.
(i) Repeal of Moving to Opportunities for Fair Housing
Demonstration.--Section 152 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is repealed.
(j) Preferences for Elderly Families and Persons.--Section
655 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (42
U.S.C. 13615) is amended by striking ``the first sentence of
section 8(o)(3)(B)'' and inserting ``section 8(o)(6)(A)''.
(k) Assistance for Troubled Multifamily Housing Projects.--
Section 201(m)(2)(A) of the Housing and Community Development
Amendments of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1a(m)(2)(A)) is amended
by striking ``section 8(b)(1)'' and inserting ``section 8''.
(l) Management and Disposition of Multifamily Housing
Projects.--Section 203(g)(2) of the Housing and Community
Development Amendments of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 1701z-11(g)(2)), as
amended by section 101(b) of the Multifamily Housing Property
Disposition Reform Act of 1994, is amended by striking
``8(o)(3)(B)'' and inserting ``8(o)(6)(A)''.
SEC. 207. IMPLEMENTATION.
In accordance with the negotiated rulemaking procedures set
forth in subchapter III of chapter 5 of title 5, United
States Code, the Secretary shall issue such regulations as
may be necessary to implement the amendments made by this
title after notice and opportunity for public comment.
SEC. 208. DEFINITION.
For the purposes of this title, public housing agency has
the same meaning as section 3 of the United States Housing
Act of 1937, except that such term shall also include any
[[Page H4753]]
other nonprofit entity serving more than one local government
jurisdiction that was administering the section 8 tenant-
based assistance program pursuant to a contract with the
Secretary or a public housing agency prior to the date of
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 209. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--The amendments made by this title shall
become effective not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(b) Conversion Assistance.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may provide for the
conversion of assistance under the certificate and voucher
programs under subsections (b) and (o) of section 8 of the
United States Housing Act of 1937, as those sections existed
on the day before the effective date of the amendments made
by this title, to the voucher program established by the
amendments made by this title.
(2) Continued applicability.--The Secretary may apply the
provisions of the United States Housing Act of 1937, or any
other provision of law amended by this title, as those
provisions existed on the day before the effective date of
the amendments made by this title, to assistance obligated by
the Secretary before that effective date for the certificate
or voucher program under section 8 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937, if the Secretary determines that such
action is necessary for simplification of program
administration, avoidance of hardship, or other good cause.
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. PUBLIC HOUSING FLEXIBILITY IN THE CHAS.
Section 105(b) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12705(b)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating the second paragraph designated as
paragraph (17) (as added by section 681(2) of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1992) as paragraph (20);
(2) by redesignating paragraph (17) (as added by section
220(b)(3) of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1992) as paragraph (19);
(3) by redesignating the second paragraph designated as
paragraph (16) (as added by section 220(c)(1) of the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1992) as paragraph (18);
(4) in paragraph (16)--
(A) by striking the period at the end and inserting a
semicolon; and
(B) by striking ``(16)'' and inserting ``(17)'';
(5) by redesignating paragraphs (11) through (15) as
paragraphs (12) through (16), respectively; and
(6) by inserting after paragraph (10) the following new
paragraph:
``(11) describe the manner in which the plan of the
jurisdiction will help address the needs of public housing
and coordinate with the local public housing agency plan
under section 5A of the United States Housing Act of 1937;''.
SEC. 302. REPEAL OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS.
(a) Maximum Annual Limitation on Rent Increases Resulting
From Employment.--
(1) Repeal.--Section 957 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12714) is repealed.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall be deemed to have the same effective date as section
957 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act.
(b) Economic Independence.--
(1) Repeal.--Section 923 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 12714 note) is repealed.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall be deemed to have the same effective date as section
923 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992.
SEC. 303. DETERMINATION OF INCOME LIMITS.
(a) In General.--Section 3(b)(2) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)(2)) is amended--
(1) in the fourth sentence--
(A) by striking ``County,'' and inserting ``and Rockland
Counties''; and
(B) by inserting ``each'' before ``such county''; and
(2) in the fifth sentence, by striking ``County'' each
place that term appears and inserting ``and Rockland
Counties''.
(b) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue regulations
implementing the amendments made by subsection (a).
SEC. 304. DEMOLITION OF PUBLIC HOUSING.
(a) Repeal.--Section 415 of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development--Independent Agencies Appropriations Act,
1988 (Public Law 100-202; 101 Stat. 1329-213) is repealed.
(b) Funding Availability.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, beginning on the date of enactment of this
Act, the public housing projects described in section 415 of
the Department of Housing and Urban Development--Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1988, as that section existed on
the day before the date of enactment of this Act, shall be
eligible for demolition under--
(1) section 14 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as
that section existed on the day before the date of enactment
of this Act; and
(2) section 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as
amended by this Act.
SEC. 305. COORDINATION OF TAX CREDITS AND SECTION 8.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rehabilitation
activities undertaken in projects using the Low-Income
Housing Tax Credit allocated to developments in the City of
New Brunswick, New Jersey, in 1991, are hereby deemed to have
met the requirements for rehabilitation in accordance with
clause (ii) of the third sentence of section 8(d)(2)(A) of
the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended.
SEC. 306. ELIGIBILITY FOR PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING.
Section 214 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1980 (42 U.S.C. 1436a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``and includes any other assistance
provided under the United States Housing Act of 1937'';
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(h) Verification of Eligibility.--
``(1) In general.--Except in the case of an election under
paragraph (2)(A), no individual or family applying for
financial assistance may receive such financial assistance
prior to the affirmative establishment and verification of
eligibility of that individual or family under this section
by the Secretary or other appropriate entity.
``(2) Rules applicable to public housing agencies.--A
public housing agency (as that term is defined in section 3
of the United States Housing Act of 1937)--
``(A) may elect not to comply with this section; and
``(B) in complying with this section--
``(i) may initiate procedures to affirmatively establish or
verify the eligibility of an individual or family under this
section at any time at which the public housing agency
determines that such eligibility is in question, regardless
of whether or not that individual or family is at or near the
top of the waiting list of the public housing agency;
``(ii) may affirmatively establish or verify the
eligibility of an individual or family under this section in
accordance with the procedures set forth in section
274A(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; and
``(iii) shall have access to any relevant information
contained in the SAVE system (or any successor thereto) that
relates to any individual or family applying for financial
assistance.
``(3) Eligibility of families.--For purposes of this
subsection, with respect to a family, the term `eligibility'
means the eligibility of each family member.''.
motion offered by mr. lazio of new york
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of House
Resolution 426, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Lazio of New York moves to strike out all after the
enacting clause of S. 1260 and insert in lieu thereof the
provisions of H.R. 2406 as passed by the House, as follows:
[The text of H.R. 2406 will appear in a future issue of the Record.]
The motion was agreed to.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the
third time and passed.
The title of the Senate bill was amended so as to read: A bill 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.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
A similar House bill (H.R. 2406) was laid on the table.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of House
Resolution 426, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Lazio of New York moves that the House insist on its
amendments to the bill (S. 1260) and request a conference
with the Senate thereon.
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the
following conferees: Messrs. Leach, Lazio of New York, Bereuter, Baker
of Louisiana, Castle, Gonzalez, Vento, and Kennedy of Massachusetts.
There was no objection.
____________________