[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 57 (Tuesday, May 6, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2188-H2243]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           HOUSING OPPORTUNITY AND RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1997

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 133 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2.

                              {time}  1515


                     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. 2) 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. Goodlatte 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, May 
1, 1997, amendment No. 9 offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Jackson] had been disposed of, and title I was open for amendment at 
any point.
  Are there further amendments to title I?


              Amendments offered by Mr. Lazio of New York

  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be considered en bloc, Mr. Chairman, and I will read off the 
following amendments:
  Amendment No. 48 offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith]; 
amendment No. 47 as printed in the Record offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink]; amendment No. 1 offered by the gentlewoman 
from Colorado [Ms. DeGette]; amendments Nos. 23 and 24 offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]; amendment No. 49 offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor]; amendments Nos. 20 and 21 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]; amendment No. 28 
offered by the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign]; and amendment No. 33 
offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
  The text of amendment No. 48 is as follows:
       Amendment No. 48 offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan: Page 15, 
     line 21, strike ``includes'' and insert ``may include.''

  The text of amendment No. 47 is as follows:

       Amendment No. 47 offered by Mr. Klink: Page 69, line 14, 
     after the period insert the following:
       The Secretary shall require that each such agreement for 
     local cooperation shall provide that, notwithstanding any 
     order, judgment, or decree of any court (including any 
     settlement order), before making any amounts provided under a 
     grant under this title available for use for the production 
     of any housing or other property not previously used as 
     public housing, the public housing agency shall--
       (1) notify the chief executive officer (or other 
     appropriate official) of the unit of general local government 
     in which the public housing for which such amounts are to be 
     so used is located (or to be located) of such use;
       (2) pursuant to the request of such unit of general local 
     government, provide such information as may reasonably be 
     requested by such unit of general local government regarding 
     the public housing to be so assisted (except to the extent 
     otherwise prohibited by law) and consult with representatives 
     of such local government regarding the public housing.

  The text of amendment No. 1 is as follows:


[[Page H2189]]


       Amendment No. 1 offered by Ms. DeGette: Page 71, line 19, 
     before the semicolon insert ``and including child care 
     services for public housing residents''.

  The text of amendment No. 23 is as follows:

       Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Vento: Page 104, line 24, 
     insert after ``program'' the following: ``, including a 
     family that includes a member who is an alien lawfully 
     admitted for permanent residence under the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act who would be entitled to public benefits but 
     for this IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
     Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996''.

  The text of amendment No. 24 is as follows:

       Amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Vento: Page 193, line 21, 
     insert after ``program'' the following: ``, including a 
     family that includes a member who is an alien lawfully 
     admitted for permanent residence under the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act who would be entitled to public benefits but 
     for title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
     Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996''.

  The text of amendment No. 49 is as follows:

       Amendment No. 49 offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi: Page 
     287, after line 15, insert the following new paragraph:
       (6) Treatment of common areas.--The Secretary may not 
     provide any assistance amounts pursuant to an existing 
     contract for section 8 project-based assistance for a housing 
     project and may not enter into a new or renewal contract for 
     such assistance for a project unless the owner of the project 
     provides consent, to such local law enforcement agencies as 
     the Secretary determines appropriate, for law enforcement 
     officers of such agencies to enter common areas of the 
     project at any time and without advance notice upon a 
     determination of probable cause by such officers that 
     criminal activity is taking place in such areas.
       Page 287, line 16, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(7)''.

  The text of amendment No. 33 is as follows:

       Amendment No. 33 offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut:
       Page 316, after line 19, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (c) Ineligibility of Sexually Violent Predators for 
     Admission to Public Housing.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a public housing agency shall prohibit admission to 
     public housing for any household that includes any individual 
     who is a sexually violent predator.
       (2) Sexually violent predator.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term ``sexually violent predator'' means an 
     individual who--
       (A) is a sexually violent predator (as such term is defined 
     in section 170101(a)(3) of such Act); and
       (B) is subject to a registration requirement under section 
     170101(a)(1)(B) of 170102(c) of the Violent Crime Control and 
     Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14071(a)(1)(B), 
     14072(c)), as provided under section 170101(b)(6)(B) or 
     170102(d)(2), respectively, of such Act.
       Page 316, line 20, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
       Page 316, lines 21 and 22, strike ``and (b)'' and insert 
     ``, (b), and (c)''.
       Page 317, line 22, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
       Page 318, line 13, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.
       Page 321, line 9, after ``Children'' insert ``and sexually 
     violent predators''.
       Page 321, line 11, after the comma insert ``the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation,''.
       Page 321, line 15, insert a comma before ``and''.
       Page 321, line 18, after ``under'' insert the following: 
     ``the national database established pursuant to section 
     170102 of such Act or''.
       Page 321, line 19, after ``program'' insert ``, as 
     applicable,''.
       Page 323, line 12, after ``criminal record'' insert 
     ``(including on the basis that an individual is a sexually 
     violent predator, pursuant to section 641(c))''.
       Page 323, line 21, strike ``641(d)'' and insert ``641(e)''.

  The text of amendment No. 20 is as follows:

       Amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       Page 332, after line 2, insert the following:

     SEC. 706. REGIONAL COOPERATION UNDER CDBG ECONOMIC 
                   DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE.

       Section 108(q)(4) (42 U.S.C. 5308(q)(4)) of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1974 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in subparagraph 
     (C);
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E); 
     and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
       ``(D) when applicable as determined by the Secretary, the 
     extent of regional cooperation demonstrated by the proposed 
     plan; and''.

  The text of amendment No. 21 is as follows:

       Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       Page 335, after line 6, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 708. HOUSING COUNSELING.

       (a) Extension of Emergency Homeownership Counseling.--
     Section 106(c)(9) of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 
     1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701x(c)(9)) is amended by striking 
     ``September 30, 1994'' and inserting ``September 30, 1999''.
       (b) Extension of Prepurchase and Foreclosure Prevention 
     Counseling Demonstration.--Section 106(d)(13) of the Housing 
     and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701(d)(12)) is 
     amended by striking ``fiscal year 1994'' and inserting 
     ``fiscal year 1999''.
       (c) Notification of Delinquency on Veterans Home Loans.--
       Subparagraph (C) of section 106(c)(5) of the Housing and 
     Urban Development Act of 1968 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(C) Notification.--Notification under subparagraph (A) 
     shall not be required with respect to any loan for which the 
     eligible homeowner pays the amount overdue before the 
     expiration of the 45-day period under subparagraph 
     (B)(ii).''.
  The text of amendment No. 28 is as follows:

       Amendment No. 28 offered by Mr. ENSIGN:
       Page 333, after line 2, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 708. TREATMENT OF PHA REPAYMENT AGREEMENT.

       (a) Limitation on Secretary.--During the 2-year period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, if the 
     Housing Authority of the City of Las Vegas, Nevada, is 
     otherwise in compliance with the Repayment Lien Agreement and 
     Repayment Plan approved by the Secretary on February 12, 
     1997, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall 
     not take any action that has the effect of reducing the 
     inventory of senior citizen housing owned by such housing 
     authority that does not receive assistance from the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development.
       (b) Alternative Repayment Options.--During the period 
     referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary shall assist the 
     housing authority referred to in such subsection to identify 
     alternative repayment options to the plan referred to in such 
     subsection and to execute an amended repayment plan that will 
     not adversely affect the housing referred to in such 
     subsection.
       (c) Rule of Construction.--This section may not be 
     construed to alter--
       (1) any lien held by the Secretary pursuant to the 
     agreement referred to in subsection (a); or
       (2) the obligation of the housing authority referred to in 
     subsection (a) to close all remaining items contained in the 
     Inspector General audits numbered 89 SF 1004 (issued January 
     20, 1989), 93 SF 1801 (issued October 30, 1993), and 96 SF 
     1002 (issued February 23, 1996).

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to 
object, for the purposes of clarification, would the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Housing repeat just by number the various amendments, 
because I was having a hard time following exactly which ones they 
were.
  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, in the printed Record it would 
be amendment No. 1, amendment No. 48, amendment No. 47, amendment No. 
23, amendment No. 24, amendment No. 49, amendment No. 20, amendment No. 
21, amendment No. 28, and amendment No. 33.
  I would mention also to the gentleman that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Holden] has offered an amendment listed in the Record 
as amendment No. 45. We are attempting to revise that amendment. That 
is presently at the desk. If I can, when I am recognized, I will ask 
for an additional unanimous-consent request to include the amendment of 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania in the en bloc application.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Continuing to reserve my right to 
object, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is asking for unanimous consent to 
do so?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. When I am recognized, or if the gentleman 
would like, we can include the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Holden] in the en bloc request. We simply did not 
have it at the time we offered this. The language had not been drafted. 
But I am willing to include that en bloc to help accommodate the 
minority on this.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
clarification of the gentleman from New York on those various 
amendments. Those are the ones that I think his staff and my staff had 
agreed to offer en bloc. I appreciate the chairman's willingness

[[Page H2190]]

to cooperate on this, the start of what could be a long day, or might 
not be so long if we continue along those lines.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Lazio] if all of the other amendments other than amendment No. 45 are 
as printed in the Record.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Yes, Mr. Chairman, they are as printed in the 
Record. When it is appropriate, I would ask for recognition for another 
unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Reserving the right to object, Mr. 
Chairman, and I hope I am not planning to object, I just wanted to be 
clear. I missed the description of what was included.
  The specific thing that I want to find out whether it is included is 
whether the gentleman has included the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] on the occupancy standard.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not offered en 
bloc at this time. It is my understanding that the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum] is offering that under title VII. I do not 
anticipate offering it en bloc.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Continuing my reservation of objection, 
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, everything in this en bloc 
amendment is in title I?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. 
Chairman, this en bloc amendment is a cross-title application, and some 
of these amendments are outside of the title that we are in, which is 
still title I, as I recall.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. As long as I am assured that it does not 
include the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum].
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. That is correct.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation 
of objection.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
amendment No. 45, as modified, be included in the unanimous-consent 
request of amendments to be considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Amendment offered by Mr. Holden:
       Sec. 709. For the Tamaqua Highrise project in the Borough 
     of Tamaqua, Pennsylvania, the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development may require the public housing agency to convert 
     the tenant-based assistance under section 8 of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 to project-based rental assistance 
     under section 8(d)(2) of such Act, notwithstanding the 
     requirement for rehabilitation or the percentage limitations 
     under section 8(d)(2). The tenant-based assistance covered by 
     the preceding sentence shall be the assistance for families 
     who are residing in the project on the date of enactment of 
     this Act and who initially received their assistance in 
     connection with the conversion of the section 23 leased 
     housing contract for the project to tenant-based assistance 
     under section 8 of such Act. The Secretary may not take 
     action under this section before the expiration of the 30-day 
     period beginning upon the submission of a report to the 
     Congress regarding the proposed action under this section.

  Mr. LAZIO of New York (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 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Lazio] that amendment No. 45, as modified, be included in 
the en bloc request?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the original request of the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] that the amendments be considered 
en bloc?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, these are 11 amendments that 
have been offered by Members on both sides of the aisle that will 
serve, I think, to strengthen the bill and eliminate issues of 
controversy that we could accommodate. I am appreciative of the Members 
who have offered these amendments.
  If I can go through briefly what we have done here, and I mean 
briefly, we have the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Smith] that changes the definition of resident programs to include 
certain listed activities. I understand he worked with the gentleman 
from Massachusetts on that, and that that amendment now is not 
controversial.
  There is the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Klink], amendment No. 47 and the other gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Doyle] which requires local cooperation and agreement when 
production of public housing on property not previously used as public 
housing is anticipated.
  There is amendment No. 1 offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado 
[Ms. DeGette], and that provides that child care services for tenants 
is an eligible activity for operating expenses. I think that is 
certainly an appropriate amendment, and clarifies the intent of the 
sponsor of the legislation.
  There is amendment No. 23 offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Vento], that clarifies that a family which includes a lawfully 
admitted resident would be eligible for the hardship exemptions for 
minimum rents in public housing as long as that person is a member of 
the family.
  There is amendment No. 24 offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Vento], again, another amendment that speaks to hardship 
exemptions regarding choice-based or vouchers, and the other amendment 
spoke to public housing.
  There is amendment No. 49 offered by the gentleman from Mississippi 
[Mr. Taylor], a very strong amendment that provides that section 8 
project-based assistance will not be provided to projects unless the 
owners consent to allow law enforcement officials into the common areas 
of projects without advanced notice if they believe that a criminal 
activity is occurring.
  There are amendments Nos. 20 and 21 offered by the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. Amendment No. 20 increases and enhances our 
protections to ensure that there is regional cooperation under CDBG, 
the community development block grant, and this is an effort to try and 
encourage regional planning and economic development, which I think is 
a very strong amendment as well; and amendment No. 21 offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], which extends home ownership 
counseling, and requires notification of availability of owner 
ownership counseling to veterans, a very strong amendment, speaking to 
our veterans and making sure they understand the availability of this 
counseling.
  There is amendment No. 28 offered by the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. 
Ensign], which speaks to a problem that could conceivably require an 
adverse action involving some senior projects in the State of Nevada; 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Holden], 
which we have discussed; and the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], amendment No. 33, a particularly 
strong amendment.
  I want to mention that some of these amendments speak to the issue of 
making sure there is safety and order in public housing. Simply because 
one has limited means in order to afford a rental unit or to purchase 
their own place does not mean that they should not have the absolute 
right to have peaceful enjoyment of those units.
  There are several of these amendments that speak to that ability, and 
particularly that of the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], 
amendment No. 33, which prohibits the admission of sexually violent 
predators to public housing. I am sure she will be speaking to that. It 
is a very important amendment. I wish we would have thought about it 
earlier, but I compliment the gentlewoman for having done it.
  That is a description, generally speaking, of the amendments, 11 all 
told, offered by Members on both sides of the aisle, that I think again 
strengthens and enhances this bill and will allow us to move this bill 
forward from the strongest possible posture.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.

[[Page H2191]]

  Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which has been included in today's en 
bloc amendment, would ban violent sexual predators from public housing 
in this country. These are people who have been convicted of the worst 
crimes imaginable, and who have been identified as likely to repeat the 
offense. It is simply wrong for taxpayer dollars to be used to allow 
people who have stalked and attacked women and children to live where 
the majority of tenants are children and single mothers.
  At a public housing project in Chicago recently, according to press 
reports, a previously convicted sex offender was charged with 
assaulting and molesting a 9-year-old girl who lived in the same 
building.
  First, he allegedly abducted her as she was walking upstairs. Then he 
took her into an apartment, molested her, choked her until she was 
unconscious. He poured poisonous liquid down her throat and left her.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. Chairman, my legislation will not eliminate violence against 
children. I wish it were that easy. But it will send a clear message 
that Congress is not going to use taxpayers' hard-earned money to 
provide subsidized public housing to people who have committed 
unspeakable acts of evil against children.
  H.R. 2 for the first time gives housing authorities access to State 
information on registered sex offenders, and allows public housing 
officials to reject an application for subsidized housing if they have 
reason to believe the applicant poses a threat to other tenants. That 
is a giant step forward, and I commend the committee on their action.
  But in addition, my zero tolerance amendment would mandate that 
public housing officials automatically reject any application from 
sexually violent predators.
  Mr. Chairman, study after study has shown that many people, most 
people, in fact, guilty of violent sexual crimes against children 
repeat their offenses and attack many, many children. According to one 
report, 71 percent of all pedophiles knew their victims prior to the 
crime. The typical offender molests on average, on average, hear that, 
on average 117 children. That is right. Members heard it right, 117 
children.
  Nearly 40 percent of the inmates serving time in State prisons for 
violent sex offenses said their victims were 12 years old or younger. 
These statistics were supplied to me by the National Center for Missing 
and Exploited Children, which supports my amendment. What these 
statistics say really loud and clear is that it is time for zero 
tolerance.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and keep our children 
safe.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Johnson-Castle-Foley 
amendment, which the gentlewoman from Connecticut just spoke about, 
which is contained as part of the en bloc amendment, as was suggested 
by the sponsor of the legislation.
  Under the zero tolerance for sexual predators amendment I am offering 
with the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] and the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Foley], housing authorities and owners of public 
housing would be required to reject any application submitted to them 
by violent sexual predators.
  Less than 2 weeks ago in my home State of Delaware, I spent the day 
with Delawareans living in Federal-assisted housing. I spoke with 
parents and children and got a firsthand look at life in public 
housing. During my visit I was approached by a little 4-year-old boy 
named Danny, who wanted me to toss a ball around with him. Danny's 
family lives in good, well-maintained public housing, working very hard 
to make ends meet.
  I thought to myself, the last thing Danny's family needs to worry 
about is whether he could be stalked by a dangerous sexual predator 
living near them in public housing.
  Mr. Chairman, according to HUD, there are currently over 1 million 
children nationwide living in public housing. In Delaware alone, over 
3,500 children reside in taxpayer-subsidized housing.
  According to an analysis published by the Bureau of Justice 
Statistics, two-thirds of convicted rape and sexual assault offenders 
said their victims were under the age of 18; nearly half said their 
victims were 12 years of age or younger.
  Mr. Chairman, our amendment would require public housing authorities 
to automatically reject any application received from a convicted 
violent sexual predator. These individuals would have had to commit the 
most egregious crime against a child, as defined by the Jacob 
Wetterling provisions passed by this House and signed into law in 1994, 
in order to be denied public housing.
  Under H.R. 2 as currently written, housing officials are given the 
authority to screen out applicants and their family members who are 
engaged in criminal activity. I amended the legislation in committee to 
give authorities access to State sex offender registration rolls, 
arming them with the most up-to-date and accurate information in order 
to properly screen out sex offenders. The zero tolerance amendment goes 
one step further by requiring public housing authorities to deny public 
housing to those individuals, violent sex offenders, who prey upon our 
children.
  Mr. Chairman, we believe that parents have the right to sleep better 
at night, knowing that housing authorities are screening out and 
denying housing to the most violent sexual predators. If my colleagues 
believe in this right also, I urge them to support the zero tolerance 
amendment as part of the en bloc amendment to bar violent sexual 
predators from our country's public housing.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Lazio] and the Democratic handlers of this bill for including an 
amendment. It was brought to my attention when traveling the streets of 
Bay St. Louis with one of our police officers, Officer Ernest Taylor, 
the great frustration that he had come to witness, and that is that in 
the publicly owned, publicly operated housing areas of the city, they 
were able to, in a contract with those people who moved in, get their 
permission to search the common grounds of those publicly owned public 
housing areas at any time. Through that they had virtually eliminated 
crime in that part of town.
  Unfortunately, it had shifted the crime, in particular, drug sales, 
to those things that were privately owned but publicly leased housing 
areas because similar contracts were not available under section 8 
housing.
  This amendment would allow for the consensual agreement between a 
landlord and a tenant, and this would require a consensual agreement 
between a landlord and a tenant that those privately owned but publicly 
leased properties, the common areas of them such as parking lots, 
courtyards, grounds, streets that run through a development, picnic 
facilities, the resident centers, basketball grounds, would be 
available so that with probable cause the police could search those 
people for any violation of the law and, in particular, drug sales.
  The amendment that I am offering and the manager has been nice enough 
to accept would make owner consent a condition of participation in the 
section 8 program for property owners who are either entering a new 
contract or renewing an expiring contract. The Department of Housing 
and Urban Development estimates that 1.8 million section 8 contracts 
assisting a total of 4.4 million low-income persons are set to expire 
this year.
  Currently law enforcement officials are allowed access to common 
areas of public housing units. However, the police must be invited on 
to section 8 housing projects by either the property owner or tenants 
in order to respond to a complaint.
  This problem was pointed out to me by Officer Taylor of the Bay St. 
Louis Police Department. I recently accompanied him on his beat as a 
civilian participating in a ride-along program, and Officer Taylor is 
one example, also, of how the Cops Program works.

  Officer Taylor explained to me that he and his colleagues have been 
able to eradicate nearly all the drugs and drug-related crimes in the 
city's publicly owned housing units through the success of the Cops 
Programs and HUD's Drug Elimination Grant Program.

[[Page H2192]]

  Unfortunately, because of the increased police presence in the public 
housing common areas, many of the city's criminals have moved their 
drug trade and related criminal activities to the city's section 8 
housing.
  This is just not right. They are both publicly paid for. They are 
both a privilege for those people who live there. And it just makes 
common sense that people should be willing to give up a little bit in 
order to get subsidized housing and in order to eradicate crime from 
that part of town.
  This amendment would provide local law enforcement with the 
flexibility they need to protect residents of section 8 housing 
programs from those who sell drugs and perpetrate violent crimes, the 
sort of crimes that the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] was 
talking about.
  In addition, the amendment is mindful of property owners' rights 
because the amendment does not apply to existing contracts, only those 
that are either new or those that are being renewed after expiring.
  It is also mindful of the rights of citizens who live in public 
assisted housing, in that the police must have probable cause of a 
criminal activity taking place before they are allowed to venture into 
section 8 properties.
  I want to thank Officer Taylor for bringing this problem to my 
attention. I want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] and 
the other managers of this bill for being willing to address it.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote for the amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the committee, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], for the fine job he has done, and 
appreciate the fact that he has worked with me and my staff to work out 
a couple of important amendments.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] for 
also concurring with the chairman. I appreciate the job that he has 
done.
  I would like to talk briefly about the two amendments. The first one 
deals with economic development initiative grants. It has a number of 
criteria but one of those criteria is not, let me say, is not getting 
the administration to look at regional cooperation.
  Too many of our cities have become islands, set right in the middle 
with the outside unattached, and my simple little amendment says, let 
us look at the regional application when we decide if we are going to 
give these grants, and let us start involving all in that general 
metropolitan area that could help to turn things around.
  The second one, though, I think is very important for veterans, it is 
very important for family homes, and it is very important to stave off 
foreclosures. Years ago, I had occasion to be sheriff in Mahoning 
County, OH, and I had noticed a couple unemployed steelworkers that 
missed one payment and the banks were moving on their homes.
  So I resisted and I went and signed those transfer deeds, and they 
could not in fact foreclose on the homes without signing those transfer 
deeds. Little did I know they would end up putting me in jail. But they 
put me in jail, and it brought a spotlight to the whole problem, and we 
have been able to mitigate that.
  When I came to Congress, we passed a little, simple law. That law 
says they have to give a 45-day notice of delinquency, and there shall 
be a 1-800 number given to that borrower that is behind and delinquent 
so that perhaps they could work out to save the family home. That has 
worked. The Traficant amendment deals with the issue that right now 
veterans, VA loans, the veteran does not get a notice until 105 days.
  Here are the simple statistics. FHA-backed loans have much higher 
delinquency, but VA-backed loans have almost as much foreclosure. The 
reason is that 105-day notice is not timely. By that time it has gone 
so far delinquent, they cannot work it out. By applying that 45-day 
notice, it will provide for intervention and the saving of the family 
home by stopping foreclosures. In addition to that, it will also, in 
fact, save our Government an awful lot of money.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  I just want to speak in favor of this amendment. The gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant] put himself at great personal risk before he came 
to the Congress by standing up for the people in his district that were 
unfairly losing their homes.
  I have seen in my own congressional district the same kind of actions 
taken by predatory practices of banks that send people, send 
individuals up to the statehouse. They find these deeds where elderly 
people have paid off all of their mortgages. They go in. They bang on 
the elderly individual's door, tell them that they need a new roof or 
new siding and the like, and the next thing we know they are paying 
these unbelievable rates of interest on the loan payments. And as a 
result, within 2 or 3 months, they end up losing their homes.
  We actually had legislation that was passed in the Congress that 
would have prevented those kinds of actions in the last Congress. 
Unfortunately, on a very narrow vote on the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services, this provision was knocked out. It is something 
that I note if the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] served on the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services, he would have fought with 
us.
  But it was unfortunate that a Member who offered the amendment to 
knock out that provision happened to come from his own district, the 
company that was sponsoring the legislation, which was ultimately too 
bad. And those are the kinds of, if somebody wants to do investigative 
reporting, that is the kind of investigative reporting that would be 
very helpful around here.
  In any event, it seems to me that this is an important provision. I 
want to thank my good friend from Ohio for the fine work he does here 
in general and the work he has done on this bill.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member. I 
want to thank the Congress, thank the chairman and ranking member for 
accommodating this language. I think it will help to save family homes. 
I urge an ``aye'' vote on the en bloc amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is the amendments offered by the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Lazio].
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?


                 Amendment No. 26 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. 26 offered by Ms. Waters:
       Page 57, strike lines 14 through 22 and insert the 
     following:
       (b) Exclusion From Administrative Procedure of Grievances 
     Concerning Evictions From Public Housing Involving Health, 
     Safety, or Peaceful Enjoyment.--A public housing agency may 
     exclude from its procedure established under subsection (a) 
     any grievance, in any jurisdiction which requires that prior 
     to eviction, a tenant be given a hearing in court, which the 
     Secretary determines provides the basic elements of due 
     process (which the Secretary shall establish by rule under 
     section 553 of title 5, United States Code), concerning an 
     eviction from or termination of tenancy in public housing 
     that involves any activity that threatens the health, safety, 
     or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises of other 
     tenants or employees of the public housing agency or any 
     drug-related criminal activity on or off such premises.

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment along with my 
distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Kilpatrick] 
to retain current law relating to the administrative grievance 
procedure used in public housing agencies throughout the country.
  Specifically, we propose that evictions, excepting those for criminal 
or drug-related activities, remain under the purview of the grievance 
procedure. The grievance procedure, in place since 1971 and amended in 
1990 and 1994, has proven to be an efficient, low-cost procedure for 
resolving disputes.
  H.R. 2 repeals current law by mandating that public housing agencies 
exclude all evictions from the grievance

[[Page H2193]]

procedure, not merely drug or criminal related activity.

                              {time}  1545

  This mandate is bad public policy, inefficient and unfair and causes 
undue Federal interference.
  Any concerns that the grievance procedure might not be appropriate in 
certain circumstances were addressed in 1990, when the law was changed 
to allow housing authorities to exclude evictions involving drug-
related and criminal activity from the grievance procedure.
  The negative effects of soaring litigation costs and an increasingly 
adversarial justice system are other reasons to encourage the use of 
the grievance process. To force the tenant who faces an eviction into a 
civil proceeding is to deny most tenants any opportunity for a just and 
mutually beneficial resolution to the problem. Study after study shows 
that tenants not represented by attorneys are at a tremendous 
disadvantage in civil proceedings.
  Finally, the fact that this exclusion is mandated by the Federal 
Government on local public housing authorities flies in the face of 
local control that has informed much of this debate. There is plenty 
that needs changing in public housing. The grievance procedure is not 
one of them.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to cosponsor this amendment 
with our esteemed colleague from California, Ms. Waters, who has 
provided leadership in this Congress for several years.
  We are in a very intense debate on H.R. 2. We spent a couple days 
last week really talking about the issues, understanding that America 
has a very large poor, homeless population, many of whom have no homes 
and are homeless, others who will be homeless if H.R. 2 passes in its 
current form.
  As the gentlewoman from California just stated, the grievance 
procedure, which is now a part of housing law, allows those with minor 
infractions, and I might highlight minor infractions, an avenue where 
they can discuss their concerns. As H.R. 2 allows HUD now to move much 
of the responsibility to local housing authorities, I believe it is 
imperative that we keep those grievance procedures intact.
  The law also says that major infractions, that would include a breach 
of law or harm to health, those automatically would be evicted. But 
without a grievance procedure, public housing residents would have to 
go directly to court.
  Our courts are already overburdened. The public defender's office has 
been cut drastically. The lawyers are overworked. And the people will 
be evicted. There is no avenue for those in public housing if H.R. 2 
passes in its current form. So I support the Waters-Kilpatrick 
amendment. I would hope the rest here in the House support it.
  We had a lot of debate last week about the work requirement, the 8 
hours of volunteer work over the 25 hours that are already required for 
many people who live in public housing. Without this grievance 
procedure, I predict, and I hope it will not become law, that we will 
have more people who now have an avenue for minor infractions, such as 
noise, misplaced garbage, unruly children, to go to a tenants' council, 
a jury of their peers and decide what type of penalty short of eviction 
should be administered.
  So I hope my colleagues support H.R. 2, the amendment that both the 
gentlewoman from California and myself are offering.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Waters] has expired.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  It is important that as we continue our debate on H.R. 2 that we 
think of the least in America. We all want changes in the public 
housing statutes, but what we do not want is to move people from their 
homes, move their children in the street and increase the homeless 
population.
  The gentlewoman from California and I have thought this out 
thoroughly. It is a part of current law, the grievance procedure. As 
HUD moves to give more authority to local housing authorities, if we 
ask around the country, they want the procedure, they want to be able 
to deal with minor infractions so that their people can remain in 
public housing, become good citizens, and serve the public well.
  So again, Mr. Chairman, we ask that our colleagues support the 
Waters-Kilpatrick amendment. Keep the grievance procedure and move to 
accept our amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleague from California, Maxine Waters, and I 
offered this amendment during committee consideration of H.R. 2. The 
amendment is very simple. The Waters/Kilpatrick amendment to H.R. 2 
will reinstate current law. Residents of public housing agencies who 
have minor infractions would not be subject to a court hearing or 
immediate eviction. Residents who are guilty of activities that involve 
criminal activity, a threat to public health or safety, or the right to 
peaceful enjoyment would still be subject to eviction and a court 
procedure under the Waters/Kilpatrick amendment.
  Currently, housing authorities administer grievance hearings in order 
to expeditiously and fairly resolve landlord/tenant disputes except 
those that involve evictions resulting from criminal activity or 
activity that threatens other tenant's health, safety, or right to 
peaceful enjoyment. The grievance process is presided over by an 
independent arbitrator and is similar to the popular alternative 
dispute resolution processes that precede or replace judicial action in 
many jurisdictions today. H.R. 2 amends current law by terminating a 
tenant's right to a grievance hearing if the hearing might result in an 
eviction and the tenant would have the right to pursue the issue in a 
court of law.
  For example:

                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Under Waters/  
           Infraction                Under H.R. 2         Kilpatrick    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't put the trash in the bin.  Go to court/        Grievance hearing.
                                   eviction.                            
Kept a cow in your apartment....  Go to court/        Go to court/      
                                   eviction.           eviction.        
Children playing in the grass...  Go to court/        Grievance hearing.
                                   eviction.                            
Selling drugs...................  Go to court/        Go to court/      
                                   eviction.           eviction.        
Painted the walls the wrong       Go to court/        Grievance hearing.
 color.                            eviction.                            
Disturbing the peace............  Go to court/        Go to court/      
                                   eviction.           eviction.        
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  H.R. 2 does away with grievance processes for non-criminal eviction 
in almost every State. Public housing tenants would be forced into 
court to resolve minor lease infractions. Grievance procedures protect 
tenants from homelessness. Finally, the grievance process is informal, 
non-intimidating, and saves taxpayers money.
  In the interest of fairness, equality, and efficiency, I urge the 
adoption of my amendment.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise regretfully in opposition to the gentlewomen's 
amendment. This amendment would continue to create a dual system of 
resolving complaints, one for those people who may be equally poor, 
equally struggling but be in market rate units whose recourse is 
through the courts, and the current system that allows the most 
troublesome tenants to have two bites of the apple, both through the 
grievance procedure and then after that to elongate the whole process 
and move through the courts.
  In this sense, the tenants that are potentially problem tenants are 
not easily removed. The housing authorities cannot quickly bring them 
before the court because they must go through this additional 
administrative grievance process that can be easily gamed.
  We are saying both people in public housing and people outside of 
public housing must live by the same set of rules; that we have a 
common way of redressing grievances and violations of the law and 
violation of leases, and that is through the State court system.
  The Waters amendment, which I think is well-intentioned, would allow 
a housing authority to exclude at its discretion only those individuals 
who were involved in activity that threatens the health, safety or 
right to peaceful enjoyment. That leaves a whole list or litany of 
other items that a tenant may be in violation of their lease for and 
for which they can force the housing authority to go first through this 
administrative grievance procedure and then, after that, they have the 
second bite of the apple, which is to go into the court system.
  That is not available to anybody else throughout the country. If a 
tenant is a problem tenant elsewhere in the country outside of public 
housing, they must use the court system, which has been established to 
try and resolve these type of tenancy problems. That is the correct way 
of resolving these problems.

[[Page H2194]]

  By creating a dual system that allows people in public housing to 
have two bites of the apple, to be able to go to first the grievance 
procedure and then through the court system, it perpetuates the 
potential trouble that is caused within the unit and potentially 
outside of the unit; it imposes additional burdens on the housing 
authority and on the management of the housing authority when they are 
desperately trying to struggle to ensure that there is peaceful 
enjoyment throughout the units and that the units are maintained in an 
appropriate way so that they can be easily let to somebody else when 
the need arises.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman did state correctly that not 
included in the grievance procedure at this time are those criminal 
acts and drug offenses. So we make sure that the most egregious 
offenses are not in the grievance procedure.
  Would the gentleman agree that an offense such as not putting the 
trash in the bin or children playing on the grass should have to go to 
court rather than appearing before a grievance procedure that could be 
resolved?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would 
suggest that, in fact, the gentlewoman's amendment, as I read it, as I 
said before, I believe does affect those activities that threaten the 
health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises.
  There are incidents, however, that may fall slightly below that 
threshold or may be questions of controversy as to whether they do or 
do not, and it shifts the burden to management to have to go through 
not one but two different processes. The point is that anybody else in 
life, when they are violating a part of the lease, are subject to 
having their differences resolved through the landlord-tenant courts. 
That is still available for people who are in public housing.
  We encourage people in public housing, as we do with the management, 
to resolve their differences short of going to court. That is 
absolutely still possible.
  We still want people in cases where there is minor differences to 
resolve them short of the judicial process. But if they cannot be 
resolved informally, then what we ought not be allowing is to have 
people who are problem people to have two bites of the apple and shift 
that burden entirely to the housing authorities.
  And the people that are really burdened are not the managers or 
administrators of the housing authorities, but in fact the other 
residents that come perhaps after in that unit, that need that unit. It 
may not be available to them in the condition they may want or in other 
situations. It may in fact affect the whole unit.
  The gentlewoman mentioned situations about trash and garbage. That 
may affect all the other tenants, if that has not been disposed of in 
an appropriate way.
  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 am not certain I am 
understanding the gentleman.
  Is the gentleman saying if there are these minor infractions, that 
there will still remain in place a grievance procedure under H.R. 2?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts, and by unanimous 
consent, Mr. Lazio of New York was allowed to proceed for 1 additional 
minute.)
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the gentleman 
that just as the case is now, we would encourage informal ways of 
resolving short of an administrative process with different procedures 
and prescriptions and short of the courts. We want people to work 
together to work out the most minor infractions. If they cannot be 
resolved, however, then certainly they have the courts to seek redress.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield, I appreciate the gentleman suggesting that that is a 
process he would like to pursue. My understanding is that is exactly 
what the grievance procedure is.
  In other words, the grievance procedure is set up to allow people 
that have a grievance, not a serious legal problem, but a grievance, to 
take that short of a legal case. So I think that procedure is set up to 
deal with exactly the kinds of cases that the gentleman described.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the point 
again is that those issues can be resolved informally short of a formal 
process with rules and procedures.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
continue to yield?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, what kind of procedure 
would this be informally resolved with?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] has 
again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts, and by unanimous 
consent, Mr. Lazio of New York was allowed to proceed for 1 additional 
minute.)
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the gentleman 
we do not need a procedure in order to resolve some of these smaller 
problems.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
yield just on that point, how would the gentleman suggest that these 
are going to get resolved? The grievance procedure, I believe, is set 
up specifically to allow for a resolution of those disputes that are 
short of going to court.
  As I understand it, we have not heard a lot of complaints about the 
grievance procedure, so my understanding is this is exactly the kind of 
procedure that I would think all of us in this Chamber would tend to 
support. Because what we want to do is say let us not overcrowd the 
court system if you do not like the color of the paint or if you have 
fish or dogs or something like that. We need some kind of procedure to 
solve this stuff.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we would 
suggest that people resolve these issues the way they do in nonpublic 
housing, informally, working together, consensually, hopefully; if not, 
using whatever tools they have. There are people who have been involved 
in rent strikes, things like that, in order to resolve their problems. 
And if not, go to the courts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my 
two friends, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters], and the 
gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Kilpatrick].
  I think their amendment is exactly on the money for exactly the 
reasons we just heard described. No one suggests that if there is a 
case that actually involves criminal activities that this should be 
resolved by a grievance procedure, but it does seem to me to be 
perfectly reasonable to suggest that we do not necessarily have to have 
every single dispute end up in court.
  The notion, as anybody that has been in a dispute with a landlord, 
and having spent a few years in college and going through a few testy 
moments with landlords along the way, the truth is everybody has had 
problems and disputes with landlords. I think it is important that we 
set up an alternative procedure.
  This is exactly where the courts nationally are going in terms of 
trying to suggest that we find alternatives to having every case end up 
in the court system.
  I would also like to point out to the gentleman, my friend from New 
York, that there is, in fact, I think, an intimidation factor that 
takes place in this procedure. In far too many States, housing courts 
do not necessarily provide an attorney to a member of public housing. 
So what happens is, in all cases the housing authority is going to be 
represented by counsel.

                              {time}  1600

  The notion that if you paint the inside of your apartment the wrong 
color, if you happen to have dogs, this bill would prevent you from 
being able to have a dog, if you happen to have fish or other kinds of 
minor disputes. It

[[Page H2195]]

does not seem to me that every one of these cases automatically ought 
to end up in a court situation. There is going to be a grave concern on 
behalf of the tenants if they have to end up going down to court in 
order to get a minor situation resolved that it is an unfair and 
unequal system.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding. That is the crux of the amendment, exactly as the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Lazio] suggests. That when there is a minor dispute, 
when there is a minor disturbance, when there is some small infraction, 
that there is an avenue for the tenants to resolve it. If the current 
law which allows that is taken out, then there is no way to resolve it 
but to go to court, but to find an attorney.
  That is the very reason why we want to keep the grievance procedures, 
for those minor situations, so the parties can talk them out. As we 
move from HUD to the housing authorities the administration's ability 
and the ability to watch over, to keep the property safe and clean, 
that has to be there. It has to be there.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. If I could reclaim my time very 
briefly, if the chairman of the committee would rise for a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman from New York, the chairman 
of the committee, might consider having the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Waters] and the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Kilpatrick] work 
with his staff to see whether or not there is a way to resolve this 
short of this amendment. Maybe we might be able to withdraw this 
amendment for the purposes of entertaining an opportunity and maybe go 
into one of the subsequent amendments and then come back to this debate 
if we cannot find a way of resolving it.
  I would think that the chairman, if in fact the perception that we 
have on this side is true, that the grievance procedure is set up to 
avoid going to court, that it is in fact the kind of cooperative 
procedure that at least our side is being informed that it is, then it 
seems to me that there may be some way to adjust that that might meet 
the chairman's standards that would allow us to work around this 
particular issue. Would the chairman be willing to entertain such a 
proposal?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. If the gentleman will yield, certainly 
whenever the gentleman asks for me to try and enter into a discussion 
to try and see if we cannot find common ground, I would be happy to 
accommodate that. Let me also add that in order that we deal in 
reality, that I think from this side we would probably not be 
interested in anything that did not deal with the issue of bureaucracy, 
of having the sort of bureaucratic step here. So if there is some way 
of resolving or addressing the concerns, we can have a discussion about 
that and perhaps we can resolve it.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I could not quite figure 
out whether the gentleman was saying there is no chance or there is a 
chance that we could work something out.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. There is always a chance when we talk.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. In that case, why do they not try to 
get together. If the Chair could inform us as to what the proper 
procedure is to protect this amendment while there is an attempt made 
to work it out and then we could come back to it if there is no 
success.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from California ask unanimous 
consent to withdraw the amendment at this time?
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, given the commitment of the chairman to 
work this out and bring it back to the floor, I ask unanimous consent 
to withdraw it for the time being, to be taken up before we finish the 
debate on the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, 
let me just add that if the application, and I would address this to 
the chairman if that is appropriate, when it might be appropriate to 
offer unanimous consent to allow the gentlewoman to resubmit or reoffer 
her amendment within the scope of this title before this title ends, I 
would be happy to, if she is withdrawing it with the right to reoffer 
it if we cannot resolve this within the title.
  Ms. WATERS. I am withdrawing it with the right to reoffer it, yes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise the gentlewoman from California 
and the gentleman from New York that if we are past title I at the time 
it is reoffered, it will take unanimous consent to reoffer the 
amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, would it be possible then 
to allow her to reoffer this after title I?
  The CHAIRMAN. If there is a unanimous-consent request and no 
objection is heard, it would be possible.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. We can make that unanimous-consent 
request at this particular time, correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would entertain at this time any unanimous-
consent request to return to title I for the purpose of this amendment 
only, or a modification thereof, at a future time.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Subsequent to title I, is that correct, 
Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. Is there objection?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if I could continue to reserve 
my right to object, I wonder if I could just prevail on the gentleman 
right now to withdraw his unanimous-consent request until we get near 
the end of the title. If it cannot be resolved, then we can talk about 
it. But we have some time right now to talk about it and we can do it 
within the title.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, to explain to the 
gentlewoman from California, I think the chairman has suggested that he 
would like us to act in good faith until we get near the end of title 
I. If we have not resolved it at the end of title I, I understand that 
he would not object to allowing the negotiation to continue beyond it. 
I would think, given the chairman's representation, we would be happy 
to accept those conditions.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?


            Amendment Offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which 
has not been preprinted.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina: Page 26, 
     line 8, after the period insert the following: ``The 
     public housing agency shall ensure that each individual 
     who provides work pursuant to the requirements under this 
     paragraph receives compensation for such work at a rate 
     that is not less than the minimum wage rate in effect 
     under section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 
     1938.''.

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I had 
preprinted in the Record an amendment which would have sought to strike 
the entire mandatory voluntarism requirement that this bill has 
contained in it. We had extensive debate about the mandatory 
voluntarism requirement last week, and it seemed to me that what people 
were saying was we want these people to work.
  I want to make it clear that I also want everybody in America who is 
able-bodied and capable of working to work. I have never opposed in the 
context of welfare reform a work requirement. During the debate on 
welfare reform last year, I expressed serious reservations about 
forcing people to work without also making sure that jobs were 
available to them that they could work at. But I have never opposed 
having people work.


                            Points of Order

  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, could I just make a point of 
order, please?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Just an inquiry as to whether the amendment 
the gentleman from North Carolina is speaking to is amendment No. 27 as 
printed in the Record, or is it some other amendment?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious the 
gentleman was not paying attention to

[[Page H2196]]

what I was saying because I started my comments by saying this was not 
the amendment that was printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk reported an unprinted amendment.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I have an additional point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. We did not have a printed copy. We now do. I 
withdraw my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his point of order.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman. I apologize to the 
chairman, I thought he had a copy of the amendment. I had given it to 
the Clerk, and I thought she had given it to the other side. I was not 
trying to pull a fast one.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not, I repeat, this is not the amendment that 
was printed in the Record. The amendment that was printed in the Record 
would have tried to amend the bill by striking out in its entirety the 
mandatory volunteer requirement. This amendment does not seek to strike 
out the mandatory volunteer requirement. What this amendment does is 
acknowledge the value of work but understand that work has associated 
with it the assumption that people will be paid, compensated for that 
work.
  I do not now, have not ever opposed people working. In the context of 
welfare reform last year, my objections to the work requirement had to 
do with whether there were sufficient jobs available that people had 
the skills to work at. I did not oppose the work requirement, have not 
ever, will not ever. What I do oppose is requiring people to work 
without compensation. This amendment simply says that the public 
housing authorities will ensure that any individual who is required to 
work under section 105 of this bill, the so-called mandatory 
voluntarism requirement, would be assured of being compensated for that 
work, at a minimum, at the minimum wage that prevails in this country.
  If we want people to be responsible, I do, also, all of us should, 
this should meet all of the criteria, all of the standards, all of the 
expectations that my friends on the other side have said this provision 
in the bill is intended to meet. In addition, it would provide some 
income for people that they could use, then, even if they wanted to 
require them to turn around and use the income that they got under this 
amendment to pay rent. I would not object to that.
  But let me tell my friends, work for pay is honorable. Forcing people 
to work without paying them is an abomination, it is against the law, 
it is against the public policy of this country, and everybody in 
America understands that it is unfair and it is a way of simply 
singling out the poor. If we want to do something good for poor people, 
if we want to do something good for public housing residents, if we 
want to raise their esteem, pay them for the work that we are requiring 
them to do.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this issue has been fully vented by this House, I would 
suggest, it has been discussed in committee, in general the concept of 
community service, and now the gentleman from North Carolina offers 
this amendment which requires compensation.
  Let me, if I can, just ask if the gentleman from North Carolina would 
engage me, if I could just ask some questions about this so I will 
understand.
  The amendment, as I understand it, requires compensation. I wonder if 
the gentleman can tell me who would pay and what would be the mechanism 
for enforcement.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is aware that 
under the provisions of section 105 as currently written, under section 
2 on page 26 which deals with employment status and liability, the last 
section of that contemplates that some of the volunteer work might be 
done directly for the public housing authority, because it says, unless 
the work is done for the public housing authority, there is no 
liability on the part.
  So if there is direct work for the public housing authority, the 
public housing authority would have to pay for it. If they got the work 
from a nursing home or someplace external, then they would have to 
ensure that the external source paid. This does not address, and we are 
not imposing, additional monetary burdens on public housing 
authorities.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. If I could reclaim my time only because we are 
so limited, I only have less than 5 minutes now, one of my major 
problems with this, of course, is that it suggests that somehow we 
ignore the fact that people who are in public housing are receiving a 
benefit. It suggests that we are asking people to give community 
service. This is not voluntarism, it is not called voluntarism in the 
bill. It is community service. We are asking tenants to provide 
community service in return for a benefit. They are getting 
compensated.
  The benefit of public housing, the apartment that they receive and in 
many cases the utilities that are paid are part of the compensation 
that people are receiving. In return we are asking the minimal amount 
of 2 hours a week, 15 minutes a day, 8 hours a month in return for the 
benefit of receiving an apartment, public housing and in many cases, as 
I say, the utilities as well.

                              {time}  1615

  Interesting, in my home, if I can because my time is so limited, I 
would say to the gentleman, in my home this week on Saturday I received 
a letter from an elderly lady who wrote to me. She had been watching 
the debate on television, and she had said that her Social Security 
check just about equaled the rent that she was paying in her market 
rate unit. She was older, she had lost her husband, she was a widow, 
and she said in her letter: Congressman, I would be pleased, ecstatic, 
to give at least 2 hours of my time a week. I am elderly. I know there 
are things I could do. She is exempted under the law, by the way. She 
would not have to. But she said she would be happy and pleased to give 
more than 2 hours a week. She thought that was a very fair deal.
  And what we are saying, that for people who are receiving the 
compensation and receiving this apartment, in some cases a free 
apartment, in some cases free utilities, it is a very reasonable thing 
to ask people in return to give 15 minutes a day, 2 hours a week, 8 
hours a month in return for that compensation.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure 
that the gentleman heard my explanation. If we are trying to build 
self-esteem, give the people the money. Even if we turn around and say 
we are going to take the money back from them as rent, which gets them 
to exactly the same place that the gentleman has just articulated he 
wants to be, he wants them to pay for their housing. Give them the 
money. Pay them and then charge them rent if that is what he wants to 
do, but do not take away people's self-esteem.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there is 
nothing in this bill that would deny people from going out and getting 
a job where they receive minimum wage or anything greater than that. As 
a matter of fact, all the incentives in this bill are to encourage 
work.
  I also want to say to the gentleman and to this body that in fact 
community service is broader than just employment. It is something that 
can be as simple as planting flowers or painting or reading to children 
in the complex. It does not have to rise to the point of what we 
consider employment.
  I would suggest to the gentleman that in the Charlotte housing 
authority they have complexes, as I know the gentleman is aware, called 
Earle Village. In that program there is a self-sufficiency program that 
residents are required to participate in.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Watt of North Carolina, and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. Lazio of New York was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. In that program people are required to 
volunteer

[[Page H2197]]

at least 10 hours per month to assistant programs ranging from early 
childhood education to parenting to after-school tutoring to elementary 
and secondary school students to mentoring and support services for 
residents enrolled in job training programs and postsecondary 
educational programs.
  This type of service, as the description goes, are included, but not 
limited to day and night care, job training program, recreation 
facilities, drug counseling, literacy and tutoring programs, and 
educational programs.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I just want the gentleman 
to know I am well aware of the self-sufficiency program at Earl 
Village. I know it personally. Let me assure the gentleman that there 
is not a mandatory requirement for work without being paid. Let me 
assure the gentleman from New York of that. He is simply wrong.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. If I could just reclaim my time, the example 
that I have that has been given to me, supplied to me by, I believe 
this is from HUD itself, says as a condition of living in Earl Village 
residents enrolled in the self-sufficiency program will be required, 
will be required to volunteer at least 10 hours per month to assistant 
programs ranging from as I described earlier. This is not discretionary 
for the resident.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Read that again because the gentleman 
from New York will see that that is something that has been proposed in 
the future. This is from a proposal, it is not from an implemented 
program, and the gentleman, he is just wrong. There is nothing in the 
self-sufficiency program at Earl Village in Charlotte, NC, that 
requires people to work without pay.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Reclaiming my time, according to the 
information that we have from HUD that program is in effect, is the 
result of the HOPE self-sufficiency program that is in place, and I 
will read it again. Residents enrolled in the self-sufficiency program 
will be required----
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Will be required.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Will be required to volunteer at least 10 
hours per month to assistant programs ranging from early childhood 
education, parenting, and the various programs that we have.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, first let me address the substance of the amendment. 
The amendment objects to the notion of work without compensation, and 
if that was what was at issue here, I think the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Watt] would have a valid point. But very carefully this 
is a proposal--and I would stress again to this body, that was included 
in the administration's request to the Congress--which from the 
congressional side was tightened up so that enforcement is enforceable 
rather than representative of a rhetorical approach.
  In any regard, the precept at issue is the notion of work for 
benefit. If you think about economics in general, sometimes one works 
for pay; sometimes our society has a barter element; that is the same 
techniques people used before the use of coin--barter--are increasingly 
used today.
  And so this is, in effect, a barter arrangement. It is work for 
benefit, and indeed, it is an untaxed benefit.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I will in just a minute to the distinguished 
gentleman.
  There is another point that I think it is very fair to raise. The 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] argues that this community 
service requirement is injurious to self-esteem. I would frankly assert 
that this body believes, or at least this side of the body believes, 
that work enhances self-esteem and that the community service 
provision, which is a work component, involves two precepts that are 
very American at their roots. Work is not a four-letter word to be 
considered pejoratively. Community service is something that has 
hallmarked this country.
  So the notion here is to instill a work community service provision 
in return for a benefit, and if one does not want the benefit, 
obviously one has the option of not participating in the program.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, first let me yield to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois, and I would say to the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Jackson] that I think he has distinguished himself with his first 
amendment offerings to this body and he has made very cogent arguments 
that are not without merit. This side does not find them compelling; 
but a large number of Members do, which says that the gentleman has 
argued well and capably, and so I will first yield to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Jackson].
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
very kind and gentle remarks. I guess I want to ask the gentleman to 
yield to a question, and that is:
  Is the gentleman aware of any Federal benefit that the Federal 
Government or this legislative body has ever provided where work was in 
exchange for that Federal benefit from food stamps to Social Security 
to Medicare to mortgage deductions to mining rights to any form of 
corporate welfare? Have we ever required of any Federal benefit a work 
provision or mandatory volunteerism provision?
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of analogous programs, 
none precisely like that, but the AmeriCorps program was designed in 
that direction, Federal work study programs are designed----
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEACH. Let me continue because the gentleman asked a very precise 
question. We have National Health Service Corps, medical grants that 
involve a requirement that people work in given circumstances in order 
to take advantage of Federal assistance. Obviously, military academies 
have some implications for work obligations.
  I would also say there are State examples. I know the State of South 
Carolina in some public school systems has had a community service 
requirement for high school graduation that has been upheld by the 
courts as appropriate. But I think that the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Jackson] is also correct in his implication that there are aspects 
of this that are somewhat unique as well, and I will acknowledge that. 
But I would also say that it is the view of this side that this fits 
the heritage of this country, it fits the pioneer spirit of the 19th 
century, it fits our great American Presidents of this century, and at 
the risk of great presumption with the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity here, I would say 
that on our side of the aisle there is an assumption that the principle 
at issue is: ``Ask not what the Federal Government can do for you, but 
ask what you can do for your community.'' This is leadership of, by, 
and for the poor, and that is not inappropriate.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Watt of North Carolina, and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. Leach was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to the 
chairman of our Committee on Banking and Financial Services and for 
whom I have the utmost respect that every single one of the programs 
that he described has compensation associated with it, every single one 
of them, National Service, AmeriCorps, the whole range of things that 
the gentleman has described. That is the first point I would make.
  The second point I would make is that there is not a President in 
this country for mandating bartering. If people choose to barter, if 
people choose to barter, that is a choice that they make, and let me 
say this last thing that I want to say in response, with the utmost 
respect and gentleness because I do not want it to be misunderstood, 
and I have the utmost respect for the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] has 
again expired.

[[Page H2198]]

  (On request of Mr. Watt of North Carolina, and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. Leach was allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from 
North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, many of the arguments that 
I have heard, the bartering argument, the whole range of arguments, are 
very, very similar to the arguments that were used to justify a system 
that existed in our country years ago that many of us would like to put 
behind us and never ever think about again, and it may well be that it 
is because of that that there is such a difference in perception on 
this issue. And I want to say that with the utmost of respect for the 
gentleman, and I have been very careful about how I said it. I tried to 
be at least.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] has 
again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Leach was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the sensitivity and 
the candor of the gentleman from North Carolina, but I want it stressed 
again that this is an issue of work for benefit, it is an issue that 
has been endorsed by the administration, although not precisely with 
the tied-down ways that the committee has brought it before this body. 
It is not in any way intended to imply the truly tortuous circumstance 
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] sets forth. I think we 
have to listen carefully and respectfully, but I do not find the 
argument compelling.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me thank the chairman of the full committee, the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], for his gentleness in our approach to 
addressing a very substantive section of this bill, and let me say, Mr. 
Chairman, without equivocation that Members on the Democratic side of 
the aisle believe in volunteerism. We believe in volunteerism if that 
definition, if Webster's definition of emanating from self-will, from 
self-determination, from one's own choice or one's own consent is the 
definition that we are all functioning from. We do not believe in a 
Government mandate called community work in section 105 of H.R. 2. If 
volunteerism means that we are urging and we are persuading people to 
volunteer, we support the thrust of General Powell's summit on 
volunteerism.

                              {time}  1630

  Community service work really is voluntary because it fosters pride 
and it fosters responsibility. Scout masters and den mothers who 
genuinely volunteer to lead Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts across our 
country should be lauded for their efforts, because that is genuine 
volunteerism.
  Many PHA, Public Housing Authorities, already volunteer. They have 
crime watch, resident councils, cleanup efforts. This past Saturday in 
Chicago, in the public housing authorities, it was called ``clean and 
green day.'' One year ago on Saturday they removed 319 tons of garbage 
from public housing.
  The real issue that we are discussing here today is whether or not 
the Government should be mandating volunteerism. What is the Government 
doing anyway mandating a law about volunteerism? It is a contradiction 
in terms. Forced volunteerism is an oxymoron. I am kind of taken aback 
today because even Oliver North agrees with my position that the 
Government should not mandate volunteerism.
  There is a difference, Mr. Chairman. We have a voluntary army, an all 
volunteer army, but when one volunteers for the army in the United 
States one is compensated. If one stays in the army long enough, one 
receives a pension, one receives points on one's home purchase and 
mortgage deductions. One receives Veterans' Administration benefits for 
volunteering into the army.
  The chairman spoke of medical school scholarships. Yes, we give 
scholarships to medical students who will come and work in low-income 
communities, but they are paid for that service. AmeriCorps, they 
receive a stipend for their efforts. The Peace Corps, a stipend for 
their efforts.
  I believe poor people should work. I know the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Watt], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], we 
believe that poor people should work, so why do we not create jobs? Why 
do we not put poor people to work? Why are we passing a law mandating 
that they give of their time to volunteer, or if they do not perform 
this requirement, face eviction from public housing.
  We are talking about people who pay rent, and that is a common 
misconception out in the public, that people who live in public housing 
are getting something free from the middle class; they are receiving 
something free from those of us who are fortunate enough to be able to 
pay. That is not true. They pay rent. We are the landlord of people who 
pay rent in public housing, and the reality is we are also raising 
their rents.
  What we should be trying to do, at least in this body, is fix some of 
these buildings, fix some of these public housing authorities so that 
the people we presently provide occupancy to, they can live in, first, 
and volunteer to help better their communities.
  If work is the issue, why are we not mandating full employment in 
this bill? The chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Lazio] he says, listen, what is wrong with 8 hours? Eight 
hours times 60, 480 minutes, divide that by 30 days. What is 15 
minutes? We are talking 15 minutes.
  No one volunteers in 15-minute segments. Just no one. Fifteen 
minutes. It takes 15 minutes to get from a public housing authority to 
the volunteer location where one is going to volunteer. Once they get 
there, then what? Most people will volunteer the entire 8-hour segment, 
Mr. Chairman, the entire 8-hour segment. Why 8 hours? Why one full 
shift of labor? Why not just pay them for their efforts? Why not put 
them to work?
  I support the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Watt]. I think it is an honorable amendment. It says that we should pay 
them at least the minimum wage for volunteering. Never since 1868, not 
since the passage of the 13th amendment, can we even make an argument 
that we as a Government have ever mandated one American volunteer to 
work without compensation. It has never happened. This is the first 
time since 1868 we have ever mandated that an American volunteer 
without providing them compensation. This is wrong, Mr. Chairman, and 
this is what we are fundamentally fighting against.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question to the distinguished 
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], if he 
would engage in a colloquy.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Jackson was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Leach], the chairman of the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services, is the gentleman aware of any Federal volunteer 
program that mandates that one American volunteer without compensation 
of any Federal benefit that we have ever passed in this body?
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, first let me 
respond to the gentleman's vocabulary. This is a work-for-benefit 
program. Democrats describe it as mandatory volunteerism; our side 
describes it as work-for-benefit, and that is where the rub comes with 
regard to the circumstance.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, is there 
any work-for-benefit associated with the mortgage deduction that we 
provide for people who receive a middle class benefit, the tax break 
that we provide for them?
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman makes a fair point. 
There is none.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman aware of any 
volunteer effort that the government mandates of any American that they 
volunteer without compensation on the Federal books?
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I am not, but again, I would stress, this is 
work-for-benefit.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson] 
has expired.

[[Page H2199]]

  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Jackson was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I would like to allow the 
chairman the opportunity to respond to the question.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I did respond to the last one.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I did not hear the 
response.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I said we define this as a work-for-benefit 
program.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, for any 
Federal benefit, is the chairman aware of any work-for-benefit 
requirement on the Federal books at all?
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would again yield, there 
are many analogous programs, but none precisely like this. There are 
also certain analogous programs at the State level.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, might I ask why we are asking 
of poor people to face eviction for failure to volunteer?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson] 
has expired.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I am so pleased 
that the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] had the vision and 
gave this the thought that finally bring us to some point where we can 
correct the mistake that we have made in this bill. I would like to 
thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson] for his persistence, 
working with the gentleman from North Carolina and others, in not 
allowing us to do something we will be ashamed of later on.
  I think the gentleman from Illinois, in raising the questions that he 
raised of the chairman, really did help to point out how outrageously 
ridiculous this really is. When the chairman was not able to respond in 
any way to describe any other instance, any other policy of government 
that would cause people to work without pay, I really do think that 
answers the question in a very stark way.
  I rise to support this amendment because I know an awful lot about 
public housing projects. I have spent a great deal of my life working 
with and trying to provide opportunities in public housing projects.
  Let me say this: If this was a real work-for-benefit program, we may 
not object if the people work and we would reduce their rents for the 
time that they would put in. That would be, at least, paying them in 
some way. That is a work-for-benefit program.
  As the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson] outlined, they are 
paying their rent. If we want to do a program that is work-for-benefit, 
then say if one works for x number of hours, we will reduce one's rent, 
because we will give one an hourly wage. That is what this does, in a 
way. This amendment says if one works, one will, at least, get minimum 
wage.
  Let me tell my colleagues what is important about this. I have been 
in the public housing projects when the housing authorities have 
contracted for work with outside entities, people who have come from 
long distances in southern California to do things like put up screen 
doors, do other kinds of work in public housing projects. I stood and I 
watched tenants saying, why can we not do that? Why can we not have 
those jobs?
  People lined up begging to do the work. I got involved in negotiating 
with the public housing authority ways by which they could include the 
tenants when they do contracts for jobs in public housing, because 
nobody had the wherewithal or the sensitivity to understand that it is 
immoral to ask people to watch other people come into the housing 
project, contractors who do not live anywhere near the community, do 
the work, make the money, take it on out someplace else to spend, while 
people there are desperate lining up for jobs.
  When there was an opportunity for the telephone company to lay cable, 
I went out and negotiated myself with the telephone company, and the 
people that they gave the jobs to loved every minute of it. Young 
people lined up as they were digging, doing hard work, to try and get a 
job.
  This business about people in public housing projects not wanting to 
work is not correct. We should not treat poor people this way. They do 
want to work. My colleagues saw what happened up in New York when they 
had minimum-wage jobs, just poor people lined up around the block. This 
business that somehow we, as public policymakers, know better than the 
people who live there about what their motivations are and what they 
will do and what they will not do must stop.
  Mr. Chairman, I will walk with my colleagues to any public housing 
project in America, and if we have jobs to offer, people will line up 
around the block. In addition to having negotiated for people to work 
who wanted jobs instead of letting the contractors come in and work 
without offering the jobs, I created some training programs inside 
public housing projects, and people lined up around the block to get in 
those training programs.
  What did we find? We found that JPTA that replaced CETA does not 
work. We called them in to give the training, the people wanted the 
training, they wanted to be connected with the jobs. Many of them who 
are on welfare want to get rid of that welfare check. They want to go 
to work every day.
  Mr. Chairman, I would not like my colleagues to use our power this 
way. I would not like my colleagues to put their foot on the necks of 
poor people rather than give them opportunity.
  This amendment is correct. Pay them for work, and they will do the 
jobs. Pay them for cleaning and doing other kinds of things above and 
beyond their rent. They will do the work.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Obviously, there is much misunderstanding and confusion on the 
subject of work-for-benefit. Much has been questioned about what has 
this Congress done in the past with regard to requiring an individual 
to work in order to receive a benefit.
  I brought it up on prior occasions, but I think it is so important to 
restate. Just last year this Congress, by majority vote by both 
parties, adopted a workfare requirement under the welfare reform act. 
It does not require 8 hours a month or 2 hours a week. In consideration 
for AFDC payments or food stamps or other programs of that sort, the 
individual must work 20 hours a week, 80 hours a month, in order to be 
eligible to maintain those benefits. Under the provisions of the act, 
that requirement goes up by the year 2000 to 30 hours per week.
  The reasoning behind that and the reason why most Members of this 
Congress supported it is because many people who receive public 
assistance are in housing projects, not because they are not worthy but 
because they do not necessarily always have the skills to move from 
dependency to independence.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], chairman of the 
subcommittee, has rightfully described this new requirement as an 
opportunity, not as the other side would describe it as some sort of 
new slavery. In fact, what we are doing is giving people an opportunity 
by volunteering, getting into the community, seeing what job 
opportunities may be available, to develop job skills, to actually 
learn a skill perhaps while they are volunteering. It would leave them 
with the ability to ultimately get employment and walk away from public 
housing.
  Now, when we look at the workfare requirement adopted by this 
Congress by majority vote by both parties just last Congress, we find 
that the 20-hour-per-week requirement is essential in order to get 
people to move to independence rather than dependency.
  I had an interesting call last week as a result of our debate on the 
floor here about work-for-benefit. It was a working man from a family. 
He says,

  Do you know how many hours a week I work to pay for public housing? I 
work 40 hours a week. I pay my taxes, and it supports individuals in 
public housing. Now, I really do not mind that, but I would like to 
think that public housing is a temporary haven while a person gets back 
on his feet, gets those job skills and moves on and becomes a taxpaying 
citizen just like me. It should not be viewed as a retirement community 
where one gives up and does not try for himself or his family.

       Unfortunately, that, in too many cases, has been the way 
     public housing has been viewed.

[[Page H2200]]

  This is going to continue to give valuable housing, decent public 
housing, to those individuals who otherwise could not find it, but give 
it on a temporary basis, simply saying, ``We will help you if you take 
the first step, that first step being independence on your own.''
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Baker] for yielding and I thank him for his work on the 
committee. I find him to be a very thoughtful member.
  Mr. Chairman, maybe part of this has boiled down to semantics. We are 
not talking about work-for-benefit here, sir; we are talking about 
benefit for volunteering.

                              {time}  1645

  We are suggesting that when the Federal Government mandates a law 
that forces someone to volunteer, that there is some 
unconstitutionality suggested with that.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, if I may reclaim my time, I will explain the 
reason for calling it voluntarism. As the gentleman categorizes it in 
some other fashion, we call it work for benefit. Although individuals 
do pay, and as the gentleman rightly pointed out, many suffer under the 
misconception that public housing residents do not pay for their 
opportunity to live there, they in fact do. But they live there with a 
subsidized rate. That means other taxpayers contribute to the public 
housing, enabling the family to live decently at a lower rate. What we 
are saying is because of that help, we are therefore asking you to take 
steps to help yourself and your own family, not unreasonable at all.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, and I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, would the 
gentleman make the same argument for the middle-class tax break or the 
middle-class help we give in the form of a mortgage deduction?
  Mr. BAKER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the 
gentleman that in many cases there is work ongoing. An individual pays 
taxes; for example, with the home mortgage interest deduction, they are 
already paying taxes. They have to work, earn a salary, to become 
taxable. Once they become taxable, then they get benefits in the Tax 
Code.
  One might well argue that a person living in his own home who has 
paid for it for 30 years with after-tax dollars, maybe that is 
unreasonable to say that the Government ought to give him a tax break. 
But I think taxes are too high in the country already, not too low, and 
I think that most people do not object to paying taxes as long as the 
programs that they are funding----
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, there are people in public housing who pay taxes. We are 
talking about subsidized housing, not free housing. We were talking 
about affordable housing.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the gentleman, but 
the original question was dealing with mortgage interest deduction, 
which goes to whether a homeowner has to pay more taxes on his home or 
less. I am suggesting that they pay too much already.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Baker] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Jackson of Illinois and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Baker was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue on the discussion 
about subsidies, Mr. Chairman. We have great subsidies in this country, 
particularly as it relates to agriculture. I was appalled when I 
learned Sam Donaldson, for example, was getting a great subsidy, as I 
suppose there are many other great Americans.
  Would the gentleman ask Mr. Sam Donaldson to volunteer for that 
subsidy that he is getting, or any of the big corporations in America 
who are being subsidized, who get their check sent to them regularly? 
They do not even have to ask for it, but their land is subsidized and 
they get it. Is the gentleman going to track them down and ask them to 
do a little volunteer work in exchange for the millions they get?
  Mr. BAKER. If I can reclaim my time, there are a lot of things I 
would like to ask Mr. Donaldson. I could put that on the list.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
there are many others. The question is, these people are getting big 
subsidies. They are getting dollars, a million dollars in subsidies, 
corporate America is. How are we going to get the volunteer time?
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the money belongs to the 
Government. My view is that individuals work and corporations, as 
individuals, and individuals on farms, and then they have to pay those 
taxes. That is not something voluntary on their part. That is my 
problem.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Baker] 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Watt of North Carolina and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. Baker was allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to 
me, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to make sure the gentleman has read my 
amendment.
  Mr. BAKER. I have it right here. It is very well written.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Under my amendment, Mr. Chairman, these 
people would pay taxes just like everybody else because they would be 
receiving at least the minimum wage, so I am where the gentleman is on 
this. If we can get people to pay taxes, let us do it. They cannot even 
pay taxes on the voluntarism.
  Mr. BAKER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the 
gentleman, they would pay taxes only on the wages they receive for the 
work, not on the value of subsidy they receive from taxpayers.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I move to strike the requisite number 
of words, Mr. Chairman.
  I would just like to mention a few of the programs, that maybe the 
principle that is being articulated by the other side of the aisle in 
terms of making certain that if someone gets something for nothing in 
this country they ought to volunteer, should then really embraced in 
terms of all of the programs that we provide for nothing to a whole 
large segment of the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a range of different programs and subsidies 
and really giveaways that the U.S. Government regularly gives to a 
broad section of our society. Those in almost every case line the 
pockets of very, very wealthy, powerful interests in this country, and 
they are never asked to volunteer at all. But when it comes to the 
people that occupy public housing, all of a sudden we are going to 
require them to meet a different standard, because they are getting 
something for nothing.
  The truth is that I voted for, as has been the case that has been 
made by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson], the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Watt], and others, that we voted to make certain 
that people do not get something for nothing. We voted, I voted, to 
make certain under a specific provision of a welfare reform bill that 
you had to work if you are going to get the benefit. I think that is a 
perfectly reasonable standard for us to set in the Congress of the 
United States and as National Government policy.
  But I would ask that it not just stop with the poor. Let us make 
certain that anyone in this country that pursues and receives the oil 
depletion allowance, which is where millions, if not billions, of 
dollars go, to the oil and gas industry, intangible drilling costs, let 
us make certain that they volunteer.
  How about the set-asides in the farm programs? The gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Leach], in the home State of that gentleman, where people get 
paid $1 million to simply not plant anything, maybe we should say to 
farmers that we are going to pay to not grow anything, that that is a 
pretty good program. Maybe they ought to be asked to

[[Page H2201]]

volunteer. Maybe people from the district of the gentleman from Iowa 
ought to come forward and have to volunteer.
  If we are going to say it for public housing, maybe we ought to make 
this across the board.
  How about people that participated in the cellular phone auction, and 
made millions and millions of dollars simply by getting their name 
pulled out of a hat? They made $20 million overnight. Maybe they ought 
to be asked to give something back.
  How about the public education system? We get that for free. Maybe we 
ought to ask them, everybody that is in public education, we ought to 
have a mandated law, everybody has to volunteer.
  How about mining rights for $1? If one pays $1, they get to go out 
and mine all of our mineral rights. For $1, foreign corporations can 
come in and make $10 billion off the United States in the gold 
industry, but we do not ask them to volunteer.
  How about the project-based section 8 owners, or the peanut farmers, 
or maybe the people that are building timber roads? Maybe we ought to 
ask everybody where we go out, use taxpayer money to build timber roads 
into the most pristine areas of our national forests, they get to go, 
identify specific trees they want to cut down, they chop them down and 
then they go and take them to the lumber mill, sell them off, they make 
the profit and the taxpayer gets the bill; maybe we ought to ask them 
to volunteer a little bit.
  How about the sugar subsidy programs? If we ask everybody down in 
south Florida who gets a sugar subsidy, shall we say to them, hey, 
listen, by the way, we want you to go and volunteer to help at a 
homeless shelter? Maybe you ought to go out and help out AIDS patients 
a little bit.
  How about people that get water rights out in the West, should we ask 
them to help out, or the grazing fees? How about everybody that gets a 
little bit of cheap power from the Tennessee Valley Authority? Should 
we ask every one of them to go out and volunteer a little bit?
  How about Bonneville Power? We ought to ask everybody in Bonneville 
Power to go out and volunteer a little bit. They get more money, I 
guarantee it, than all these folks who get a little bit of money in 
public housing.
  So sure, the rural housing programs. Let us go ask everybody at Gallo 
Wine, who are getting paid $650,000 this year to be able to go out and 
advertise Gallo wine abroad, maybe we ought to get the Gallos to come 
on out and volunteer a little bit. What do Members think?
  How about people who make toilet seats for the Pentagon? We ought to 
get them to come out and help out.
  There is a whole list of folks out there who do very, very well under 
government subsidies. I just figure, hey, gang, if this is good enough 
for everybody in public housing, then let us make it good enough for 
everybody. But let us not beat up the poor and use them as the bully 
pulpit, as the bully boys, to make our point that people ought to 
volunteer in America.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the proposal of the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] to compensate tenants forced 
to work under this bill. From funding cuts in vital assistance programs 
to heartless welfare reform, the Republican majority seems to do all it 
can to keep our poor in poverty.
  Today's housing bill, H.R. 2, goes even farther by including a 
heartless forced work requirement. This amendment encourages work and 
is a first step toward self-sufficiency. We cannot expect families to 
make the transition from welfare to work if they have no income or a 
place to live. Housing residents should be given real paying jobs. Let 
us not kid ourselves that enforced labor without pay is voluntarism. It 
is not. This is the Government forcing people to work in exchange for 
Federal benefits.
  The Watt amendment is fair, it provides fair pay for work. I strongly 
urge my colleagues to pass the Watt amendment.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that we have been debating this issue 
now since last week. The public has been debating it. It has been in 
the newspapers. The public understands this. My colleagues are going to 
make every single effort they can to wrap this debate in the flag. They 
are going to say it is uniquely American to have a barter system, it is 
uniquely American for people to volunteer. All of the flag enhancement 
kinds of things are being put in the backdrop of this debate.
  Let me tell my colleagues, this is not about a barter arrangement, it 
is not about volunteering to volunteer; this is about mandating that 
people provide services without working, without being compensated. 
That is what this debate is about. We can make it sound all tidy and 
American and pretty if we wanted, but there is something about this 
that is just not right and we know it. We know it.
  It brings back images that some of us never want to have brought back 
in this country. It is just not right, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues 
ought to understand that. The public understands that it is honorable 
for people to work and be paid for it. We understand that. But it is 
dishonorable to say to somebody, you go out and we force you to work 
and we are not going to pay you for it.
  That is not an American concept. It is inconsistent with the American 
dream. It is inconsistent with the principles that we stand for in this 
country. I just cannot stand here and listen to my colleagues make it 
sound like somehow this has some kind of American history motive. It is 
wrong. It is inconsistent with our American history. In the final 
analysis my colleagues, I hope, will understand that and adopt this 
amendment.
  All we are saying is, if you are going to have people work, please 
pay them for the work that they provide; and if you want to turn around 
and get them to pay for their housing, do it, but do not force them to 
work without compensation. I thank the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. 
Velaquez] for yielding.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we simply need to state the obvious. There is 
no doubt that we in America can together make this place a better place 
to live. Voluntarism and the concept is not a pariah, but the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] is trying to say and has said 
involuntary servitude is. We ended that.

                              {time}  1700

  Therefore, it is time for us to move forward and accept the equality 
of every American, no matter what housing facility they live in. With 
that, I support the Watt amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] 
for further comment.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding to me.
  I do not want to get emotional about this. But there are some 
concepts in this country that we cannot wrap in the flag and hold up 
the flag and defend them and say, we are doing something that is 
uniquely American. This is not uniquely American. I hope that everybody 
on both sides of the aisle will understand that.
  This is not an American concept. It is not something that has 
parallels in other areas of our life. I just hope that my colleagues 
will not put our country through this.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me say that just from a 
personal experience working with public housing authorities, there has 
not been a time when I have gone to those communities and said, let us 
do a cleanup, let us work with our youth that they have not poured out 
their hearts, their souls, and their bodies to do this in a volunteer 
manner because they believe in a better quality community as well. Why 
can we not work with public housing residents in that manner? That is 
the appropriate manner. That is respecting them as decent, respectable, 
equal Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson].
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I grew up in a household where

[[Page H2202]]

we were encouraged to volunteer. We want to encourage every American to 
volunteer. It is the right thing to do. At Thanksgiving time, 
Christmastime, we volunteer in soup kitchens, we volunteer all across 
the country for people who are less fortunate than ourselves. The 
American people must be weary. I know my constituents are weary when 
the Federal Government would pass a law that only mandates that poor 
people, the people that we should be volunteering for, are being asked 
to volunteer for us and being made to do that or face an eviction from 
public housing. That is really the only issue that we are discussing 
here today.
  There is nothing wrong with voluntarism. My colleagues on both sides 
of aisle believe in voluntarism. The problem is the Federal Government 
mandating a law in exchange for the Federal benefit of the right to 
live in an affordable house. We will evict them if in fact they do not 
volunteer. We require and attach that particular condition to no 
Federal benefits that I am aware of, and certainly since the passage of 
the 13th amendment have we ever attached such a condition onto an 
amendment.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding to me. I 
certainly want to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues, 
certainly the distinguished chairman of this committee and the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for their graciousness 
during the course of this debate.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, in 
conclusion, I thank the gentleman. Let me just simply say that 
voluntarism is one of the highest callings that any of us could be 
called to do. I realize that all of us have at our grandmother's knee, 
our family's homestead, been taught to share with those who are in 
need. We have been taught to do it Christmas, Thanksgiving, summertime, 
fall, any time of the year because we want to make sure that people 
have an opportunity to do better. Can that not be the call of this 
Congress on H.R. 2, that we simply encourage those who live in public 
housing to work along with every other American in their volunteer 
effort? Is not that the better way?
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the debate, which is not dissimilar 
from both the debate that we had over in the committee and the debate 
that we had last week on this subject. I think there are legitimate 
issues being raised. I can understand them. I supported this concept in 
the legislation and I still do. I would just like to point out a couple 
of examples I have been through.
  One was in the area of welfare reform. Delaware became one of the 
first States to mandate having to go to classes, having to go through 
job training or whatever it may be, not work per se, tantamount to 
having to do something. I suspected that the individuals that were 
asked to do that would be up in arms about it. I went to the first 
class, there were 18 women and 1 man there, to discuss this with them. 
And I was really amazed at how well they had received this opportunity.
  Anyone who thinks that welfare recipients or people living in public 
housing are necessarily people who do not want to improve their lives, 
I think are wrong. I believe, given the opportunity, they are willing 
to reach out and help themselves.
  We have had tremendous returns on this in Delaware. We are very proud 
of our record under both a Democratic Governor and a Republican 
Governor. We think it has worked extraordinarily well. Just 10 days ago 
I visited two housing authorities in Wilmington, DE, and Rehoboth 
Beach, DE, and spent time talking to some of the individuals living 
there, actually in the living room in one case.
  They were telling me about the things they are doing which I would 
consider to be community work or voluntarism, whatever we want to call 
it, helping with kids, taking the kids to Great Adventure. Earning 
money for it, they were having a dance at night, teenagers were 
involved in it. We can call it work. We can call it voluntarism. We can 
say it is tantamount to work and they should be compensated, but these 
individuals were doing it willingly and there was a sense of community 
there. My judgment was that this is not as negative perhaps as it is 
being presented here, is the point which I am trying to make, although 
I think I understand the arguments that are being made at this point.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I would just like to make a couple very brief points first to the 
gentleman from North Carolina; the principles of community service and 
work are bedrock American values. There are other values as well. One 
is the value the gentleman raised, we do not want anything that 
approaches involuntary servitude. That is something all of us have to 
keep very carefully in mind.
  In the background of this discussion is a public housing circumstance 
in many parts of the country that is, frankly, failed. All Members of 
Congress understand that. So the committee looked at models around the 
country. One of the models that came to the attention of the committee 
was a program in Milwaukee, WI, called the Hillside Terrace 
development, run by the city of Milwaukee. As a condition of occupancy, 
this particular housing project required that everyone sign a condition 
of occupancy statement that had a number of points, about eight. Let me 
mention three.
  One was that every resident would enroll and actively participate in 
the neighborhood block watch program. A second was that every resident 
would agree to clean and maintain the common areas. A third condition 
was that every resident complete a given number of hours per month of 
volunteer service.
  In the wake of this community participatory circumstance, the 
residents of this particular public housing project, Hillside Terrace, 
have managed to effect a dramatic reduction in the rate of crime in 
their area and they have upgraded the public housing stock.
  Now, actually the conditions of occupancy required in this Milwaukee 
project are substantially more strenuous than the condition that is 
being requested in this bill. In fact, our bill does not go to anyone 
that has a job, that is in training, that is part of any sort of 
welfare work project of any nature.
  This only goes to able-bodied citizens of a given appropriate age. So 
it goes to a fairly small grouping of people, under the premise that 
there should be work for benefit and based on the premise that some 
sort of new community participatory work aspect will not only be 
helpful to the individual in job skill development but helpful to the 
project itself and the rest of the community.
  On our side, with the administration, we think this is very 
reasonable. I would just stress that in a sense because the 
administration is of the other party, of the gentleman's party, that 
this is a bipartisan circumstance. There is also an inner-party 
dispute, and we recognize that. But this is intended to be brought 
forth in as reasonable a way as possible.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Jackson of Illinois, and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Castle was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, this is an important point. I 
understand from talking to the chairman that the community work that we 
are talking about is very open-ended in terms of what it is. Is it work 
or is it volunteerism or whatever it may be. It may be a form of 
compulsory volunteerism. But it is open-ended. I think it makes a 
difference in terms of wages.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, let me first say I 
understand that the chairman is sincere. I know, I have the utmost 
respect for the chairman. I know he would not represent anything that 
he did not believe in. I respect that and I want to say that publicly.
  But all of these things that the gentleman described are things that 
emanated from a community. They were not mandated by the Federal 
Government. I will tell the gentleman that

[[Page H2203]]

that is a substantial difference. The Federal Government has no such 
policies, and if we get on this slippery slope toward this, there is no 
way to cut it off, no way with integrity to cut it off.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Jackson of Illinois, and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Castle was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I do want to make the 
distinction between things that emanate from the community that people 
buy into, they get together. They decide what they want to do. That is 
a form of their volunteerism. But mandating it is a whole different 
issue, in my opinion.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 133, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Watt] will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments to title I?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I want to protect the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] who 
was on the floor, and we have been negotiating the amendment, to, if we 
close title I, that that be closed subject to her being able to offer 
that amendment, and also the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], 
out of fairness to both of them.
  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 appreciate the 
chairman's willingness to try and protect our Members on our side with 
their amendments.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, as was stated earlier, we had agreed to 
come back with a redraft of the amendment, the Waters-Kilpatrick 
amendment that spoke to the grievance procedure. We have reworked it 
and we would like to offer it.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I understand the amendment is 
not at the desk, that the legislative drafting has not been completed, 
and we have not had a chance to look at that.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I think we would just 
like to make certain, I think the chairman of the subcommittee and 
myself would just like to make certain that their rights are protected 
to be able to come back. The Chair had explained to us earlier that as 
we got close to the end of title I that we needed to come back and make 
certain that there was time to draft the amendment. I think both the 
chairman of the subcommittee and myself are just trying to make certain 
that we have in fact protected fully the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. 
Kilpatrick], the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  The CHAIRMAN. There is no request pending for the Chair at the 
moment.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
when we close title I, it be subject to allowing the amendment by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], which is printed in the 
Record as No. 3, and amendment No. 26, which was offered by the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] and the gentlewoman from 
Michigan [Ms. Kilpatrick] to be offered subsequent to closing.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York to the offering of those amendments once the committee has 
read beyond title I?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Lazio] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] for accepting 
my amendment to allow local housing authorities to use their operating 
funds to provide child care services for public housing residents.
  I know this issue pales in comparison to the last issue that was 
discussed but it really raises the reason why legislation like this is 
really not designed to empower poor people to go out and work when they 
live in housing projects. The fact that child care was omitted from the 
original legislation shows that there is a real lack of understanding 
of what we need to do to help public housing residents empower 
themselves and go to work.

                              {time}  1715

  The lack of day care can be devastating to poor families who are 
trying to work, who are trying to go into the work force, and it is the 
height of hypocrisy to impose all of the onerous restrictions that we 
see in this bill and to ignore child care. My amendment does not fix 
all of these unacceptable provisions, but what it does say is that the 
public housing authorities can use operating funds at their discretion 
for child care.
  If we really wanted to look at thoughtful housing reform, we would 
look at a model that is in my district in Denver, CO. Warren Village is 
a program, a private program, that provides housing for single mothers 
who are trying to get back on their feet. Women can only live in this 
housing for 2 years and during those 2 years they are required to 
either work or take classes. However, most residents do both.
  When the program first started, there was no child care available and 
it became quickly apparent that these working mothers could not afford 
to go through the program because there was absolutely no way they 
could fulfill job or education requirements and, at the same time, have 
no child care. Warren Village quickly started raising money to start an 
on-site child care program, a program which I visited a few months ago.
  This child care program is one of the best in the country and what it 
does is teach the children of low-income housing residents that they 
can break the cycle at the same time their mothers are breaking the 
cycle. It is probably one of the main reasons that Warren Village has 
been so successful in getting women back on their feet. They are taking 
classes, they are getting job training, and, most importantly, they are 
keeping those jobs.
  If we truly want to look at ways that we can help residents of public 
housing get back on their feet, it is vital that we have child care, 
and that is why I am so pleased that both the chairman and the ranking 
member have agreed to put this child care provision in the legislation.
  Once we can fix the rest of the legislation and have a compassionate 
and thoughtful bill, we can help these residents keep their dignity and 
get back on their feet.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentlewoman's 
perceptive and, I think, important amendment to this bill.
  The gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. DeGette] has distinguished herself 
in the short time she has been in the Congress of the United States. 
This is important legislation that begins to look out after the needs 
of the mothers that are in public housing and to recognize the fact 
that because of the lack of support for child care that takes place in 
general in this country, that we have a tremendous disincentive from 
allowing these mothers to go to work.
  If people in public housing have very, very low incomes, they do not 
have any of the kind of normal support services that many of the rest 
of us can take for

[[Page H2204]]

granted. As a result, the idea of leaving a child alone versus going to 
work puts the mothers oftentimes in a very, very difficult dilemma.
  I think the idea of allowing a portion of the operating subsidies to 
go to setting up this kind of child care is an important recognition of 
the bind that mothers are in. So I just wanted to take a moment to 
compliment the gentlewoman from Colorado and let her know that Members 
on both sides of the aisle very strongly support the amendment which 
she offered.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I just wanted to note, because I think there was some confusion in 
the presentation that we accepted the gentlewoman's amendment in the 
bill.
  It was completely the intent of the committee, it is the 
understanding of the committee that it is inherent in the qualified 
activities inherent in this provision of the bill that child care 
services were already incorporated.
  The gentlewoman had a concern, a valid concern. The amendment was 
accepted by myself and by the committee, and I just want to make clear 
that that was the case because I think there was some impression 
somehow that we were less than cooperative in showing that we supported 
this amendment.
  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 do not know what that 
exchange was all about, but as the Democratic manager of this 
amendment, I never had any impression that the gentleman from New York 
was anything other than supportive of this amendment.
  I appreciate the fact that the gentleman was cooperative in trying to 
make this a part of the en bloc.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I also thank the gentleman, and I thought 
I made that clear in my statement, that I do understand that this is 
supported.
  My only point is that I think it should have been in the original 
language of the bill, and I appreciate the cooperation in now putting 
it in because child care really is essential in these situations.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this Member, 
and I believe this side of the aisle, strongly supports child care, 
additional funding for child care, and believes it was inherent in the 
provisions of the bill as to qualified activities.
  But I am happy to clarify this language, and the gentlewoman's 
amendment does that, and I am happy to offer my support.


            Amendment Offered by Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts:
       Page 35, after line 23, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (h) Full Funding Requirement for Mandatory Effect of Family 
     Self-Sufficiency Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section, if for any fiscal year sufficient amounts are 
     not or have not been provided in advance in appropriation 
     Acts for such fiscal year specifically for covering all costs 
     to public housing agencies of entering into, monitoring, and 
     enforcing the family self-sufficiency agreement requirements 
     and all other costs arising from such requirements, a public 
     housing agency shall not be required to comply with such 
     requirements during such fiscal year, but may comply with the 
     requirements during such fiscal year solely at the option of 
     the agency.
       (2) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``family self-sufficiency agreement requirements'' means the 
     following requirements:
       (A) Establishing target dates for transition out of 
     assisted housing.--The requirement under subsection (b) to 
     enter into agreements under such subsection regarding target 
     dates.
       (B) Entering into family self-sufficiency agreements.--The 
     requirements under subsection (d)--
       (i) to enter into agreements containing the terms under 
     subparagraphs (A), (C), and (D) of subsection (d)(2) and 
     containing the condition under the second sentence of 
     subsection (d)(1) with respect to such terms; and
       (ii) to include any such terms in agreements under 
     subsection (d).
       (C) Enforcing agreements.--Any requirements under this 
     section to monitor, enforce, or give any force or effect to--
       (i) an agreement entered into under subsection (b);
       (ii) the terms included in an agreement entered into under 
     subsection (d), pursuant to subparagraphs (A), (C), and (D) 
     of subsection (d)(2); and
       (iii) with respect to such terms, the condition included in 
     an agreement under subsection (d) pursuant to the second 
     sentence of subsection (d)(1).

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (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 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the 
chairman of the subcommittee, I hope he is not upset at any little 
confusion, it is just that being that agreeable will sometimes catch us 
off guard. But we will adjust to it, and we certainly do not want to 
discourage him from the pattern. So it is very much appreciated.
  This is an amendment, Mr. Chairman, that deals with another piece of 
what we debated last week. We debated thoroughly last week the 8-hour 
work requirement. There is another requirement in this bill, in the 
same provision, and it has to do with a requirement that every housing 
authority in the country get into a negotiation, except it is really a 
mandate, with most of their tenants by which the family and the agency 
enter into an agreement.
  Included pursuant to subsection (D)(2)(c), as a term of agreement 
under subsection (D),

       Establishing a target date by which the family intends to 
     graduate from, terminate tenancy in, or no longer receive 
     public housing or housing assistance under title III. This 
     section may not be construed to create a right on the part of 
     any public housing authority to evict or terminate solely on 
     the basis of the failure to comply.

  Obviously, we want to try to encourage people to get out of housing. 
And my amendment says, which I have worked on with the gentleman from 
Illinois, that we will make this option; that is, we will empower the 
housing authority to do it if they want to, in case there was any doubt 
as to their legal authority, and we will even make it mandatory if we 
appropriate the funds for it.
  CBO has said this will cost millions of dollars. Exactly how much we 
cannot be sure because it was lumped in with another provision together 
that would cost $35 million.
  But I would urge Members to think about what they are doing. If this 
amendment is rejected, we are ordering every housing authority in the 
country to take on an added burden in which no more services are 
provided, no more is asked of the tenant except more paperwork. What it 
says is that every tenant who is covered by this will have to sign an 
agreement in which they will agree to work toward termination of living 
in public housing.
  I do not know quite what it will mean. I do not know how valuable 
anyone can think this will be. If an individual is in a housing 
authority and they go to every single tenant and say let us talk about 
when you are getting out, I cannot for the life of me see the value of 
it.
  I am prepared, however, to allow this to be done on an optional 
basis, but this is a mandate to every housing authority and it is 
unfunded. However, while it is a mandate that is unfunded, the ruling 
is that it is not an unfunded mandate. So we should distinguish. An 
unfunded mandate, apparently, is only to be the case where we require 
something which we have not previously provided any funds for. Here 
funds are provided to housing authorities, and this adds to the burden 
of the housing authorities with no additional money.
  Particularly for small and middle-sized housing authorities, this is 
a very considerable burden. These are authorities which have all manner 
of things to worry about that now have to go and sit down with all the 
tenants who are covered, the large number of tenants, and work out this 
agreement, this self-sufficiency agreement.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is a good idea for people to get out of 
public housing, but the notion people can write themselves contracts 
that will get them out seems to me to impute a

[[Page H2205]]

power to contracts that do not happen. Are we thinking that people will 
be sitting there and saying, gee, I am going to live in public housing 
forever; and then we say, no, no, we want you to sign a contract saying 
when you will get out, that that will be the first time it will occur 
to them to get out?
  How does this add to the motivation for people to get out? Presumably 
we want people to be motivated to make more money. We want people to be 
motivated to be more successful. There are housing projects to live in 
which are not all that attractive. I think people already have 
incentives to get out. And if they do not, this adds nothing to it. It 
is simply a whole lot of paperwork.
  And I will just say to the Members, Mr. Chairman, that if they vote 
for this, I think it is fairly easy to predict that 2 and 3 years from 
now they will have some pretty angry housing authority directors and 
personnel to account to and some pretty angry housing authority 
members. People are going to wonder why this is going to come down from 
Washington and order every housing authority to sign a contract of 
self-sufficiency with every member.
  It is a useful goal, but it does not seem to me this accounts for it. 
Frankly, I thought Republicans were in the mode of cutting bureaucracy, 
and this goes exactly in the opposite direction if we do not make it 
optional.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word 
in order to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Massachusetts 
just briefly about the potential for a time limit on this amendment and 
whether the gentleman would consider if we set a 30-minute parameter on 
this debate, 15 minutes on each side, whether that would be something 
the gentleman might be interested in.
  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 have already used up 5. I 
did not know that. Thirty in addition?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if the 
gentleman wants to add the 5 to his 15.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield.
  Yes, I will take 30. The gentleman can take his 5 and 30 after that, 
sure.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. So, Mr. Chairman, I would take 15, and the 
gentleman would have a total of 20, with the 5 he has already used. Is 
that acceptable to the gentleman?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. That would be acceptable.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that our 
agreement be implemented, please, and held in order.
  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 assume the gentleman 
intends for the time to be equally divided.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, yes, the time would be equally 
divided between the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and 
myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the unanimous-consent request, there will 
be 15 minutes on each side, 15 minutes managed by the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Lazio] and 15 minutes by the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Frank], on this amendment and all amendments thereto.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio].
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment does speak to the ability for us to 
implement both the self-sufficiency contracts that are the means by 
which tenants begin to outline the steps that they might take, 
voluntarily, with the housing authority, to return to self-sufficiency. 
It also speaks to the core issue of community work and community 
service that this House has been debating for the last several days.
  Mr. Chairman, housing authorities in America receive from the Federal 
Government almost $3 billion a year to subsidize their operating 
expenses right now. Under the terms of H.R. 2, the bill before this 
House, housing authorities would continue to receive nearly $3 billion 
a year to subsidize their operating expenses.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, who has looked at this, 
this is not an unfunded mandate. They do not characterize it that way. 
As a matter of fact, their review of the provision in this bill 
suggests that, through the management changes made in this bill, 
through the flexibility that inures to the housing authorities, there 
will be savings, savings, to the housing authorities in excess of $100 
million annually.
  The idea that we would ask the housing authorities to do a little bit 
more so that they would change their mission from simply being a place 
where people receive their housing to broaden their mission to include 
the assistance of helping people transform to self-sufficiency, is a 
valid one.

                              {time}  1730

  It is a valid mission. It is an appropriate mission. We should be 
focusing on the core issues of poverty and not just on the symptoms of 
providing shelter. Because the issue of poverty is much broader than 
simply housing, although housing obviously is one of the core issues.
  I would say that to ask housing authorities to do this minimal 
additional program of implementing self-sufficiency contracts and 
implementing the community work program in return for the great 
flexibility that they would receive under this bill, where over two 
dozen programs are consolidated into two, an operating fund and a 
capital grant, is not unreasonable. It is completely reasonable.
  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 wanted to ask, because 
these are laudable goals to help them get out, I assume that means a 
job, what are the housing authorities going to do? How are the housing 
authorities going to do job training? Then we are talking about a lot 
more. What is it that the housing authorities are going to do through 
this piece of paper?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Reclaiming my time, I would say to the 
gentleman here, the housing authority's mission is going to be to help 
coordinate the efforts, to ensure that these self-sufficiency 
agreements have meaning, that they work with people who are tenants to 
ensure that if there are vocational training possibilities, if there 
are employment possibilities, if there are possibilities of working 
with the Job Corps, in resume building, experiencing a vocational 
exposure that might be helpful in terms of working with a labor union, 
that those might be available to the individual, where they may begin 
to coordinate these type of supportive services that will get to the 
core issues of self-sufficiency and poverty.
  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 want to go back to 
the point that the gentleman made earlier in his remarks where he 
indicated that the housing authorities received this $3 billion a year, 
roughly, $2.9 billion. Does the gentleman understand that this 
requirement, according to CBO, would require 1,100 additional employees 
by housing authorities throughout the country?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Reclaiming my time, the CBO, Congressional 
Budget Office, estimate as I understand it speaks to not just this one 
issue of community service and community work or not just the self-
sufficiency program but the vast panoply of programs that would be 
implemented under the terms of H.R. 2. What they also make clear is 
that there is a net savings of $100 million annually under this program 
when fully implemented. When this bill is fully adopted, there are 
administrative savings, just administrative savings alone, of $100 
million annually, which more than absorbs all the costs associated with 
the implementation of this program.
  I would also argue to this House and to the gentleman that again if 
what we are talking about is $35 million in the scheme of $3 billion 
that the public

[[Page H2206]]

housing authorities are subsidized for, and yet in the end the 
objective that is fulfilled is that we begin to move people out of 
public housing under their own means, that we have achieved something 
very great and very important.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I just want to quote from 
the CBO study that indicates not only would it require 1,100 new 
personnel, this particular program would also require $35 million a 
year. This is a debate that we had extensively earlier on in this bill, 
several days ago. The fact of the matter is that this is why we called 
this and why the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] was perfectly 
appropriate in calling this an unfunded mandate.
  The gentleman is right that the overall bill will save $100 million. 
The overall bill is going to save $100 million because they are going 
to throw out poorer people and take in richer people. The richer 
people's rent sticks to the CBO's account number; therefore, the bill 
is going to save money. It is not going to save money through programs 
like this. This is an expenditure. It is an expenditure that CBO claims 
is going to cost $35 million and will require 1,100 new employees.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Let me just say that is only for these two programs, not the whole 
panoply. Let me just say, if I thought this was going to work, I would 
not begrudge it. Read it. It is the most Rube Goldberg-esque scheme. 
What we are going to do is talk these people out of living in public 
housing, get them to sign a contract. It is a lot of bureaucratic 
gobbledygook that will not work.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Jackson].
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, and appreciate 
the opportunity to join him as a cosponsor of this provision. This 
amendment guards against the creation of an unfunded mandate in section 
105 of this bill by ensuring that public housing authorities retain 
discretion not to implement self-sufficiency agreements unless 
sufficient funds are appropriated to cover the costs.
  The self-sufficiency requirements in section 105 would force public 
housing authorities to create a new bureaucratic system and take on an 
enormous paperwork burden. It would require them to take on additional 
functions of assessing participants, managing case loads, retaining 
records on all participants and overseeing resident compliance. Housing 
authorities cannot perform that role without additional staff. Over 
half the housing authorities in this country have 100 or fewer units, 
which often means a staff of less than 5 people, with half of the staff 
being maintenance employees.
  Mr. Chairman, in its report on the cost of H.R. 2, CBO tells us that 
community work and self-sufficiency programs will cost $65 million in 
the first year and $35 million annually after that. The report also 
estimates that housing authorities will have to hire over 1,100 
personnel to staff such programs. In addition, H.R. 2 creates 
substantial liability costs if residents are harmed while fulfilling 
work requirements. Yet H.R. 2 authorizes no funding to cover any of 
these additional costs.
  Mr. Chairman, where will we find the additional funds in the midst of 
efforts to balance the budget? Apparently we, as Members of Congress, 
do not have to worry about that, because this provision would pass the 
buck to public housing authorities to figure out how they should cover 
the costs. Will they be forced to raise rents even higher?
  The subcommittee chairman claims this provision is not an unfunded 
mandate because public housing authorities can use their operating 
funds to cover the costs. I must emphasize to all Members of this 
Chamber, however, that public housing budgets have been cut by 25 
percent over the past few years. Housing authorities are currently 
underfunded, receiving only 88 percent of the operating funds that they 
actually need. Housing authorities estimate overall operating costs at 
$3.3 billion but they currently receive only $2.9 billion.
  In response to budget cuts, they have downsized substantially over 
the past few years. Since 1995 the CHA alone in Chicago has experienced 
roughly $80 million in budget cuts. In response to this, it has been 
forced to cut its staff by 1,300 employees. Mr. Chairman, housing 
authorities do not have the additional $35 million per year in their 
thinning budgets to implement this new program.
  A second problem I have with section 105 is that aside from creating 
a bureaucracy and increasing costs, it will duplicate the function 
already being performed by welfare agencies who have trained staff to 
do such work. One of the goals of H.R. 2 is to increase local 
flexibility and control, yet section 105 directly contradicts those 
goals. If housing authorities have been creating successful self-
sufficiency programs in the past few years, should we not leave it up 
to them to determine how many residents they can effectively serve at 
one time? Should we not allow them to determine whether a program is 
more successful when it is mandatory or when it is incentive-based?
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment to H.R. 2 would provide housing 
authorities with that flexibility. It will ensure that if funds are not 
appropriated to pay for the cost of the self-sufficiency program, that 
public housing authorities will have discretion over how to implement 
locally designed self-sufficiency programs.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. If we truly care 
about making public housing more efficient, we must avoid the 
unnecessary duplication and burdensome unfunded mandates that this 
provision provides.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach].
  Mr. LEACH. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just make several brief points.
  First, in terms of unfunded mandates, the CBO represents to the 
committee that this requirement is a condition of receipt of Federal 
funds rather than an unfunded mandate.
  Second, I think the minority side has made an absolutely valid point 
that there is an additional burden for housing authorities implied 
here. On the other hand, I think it should be clear that there is some 
return for that burden. For example, if I am a housing authority 
director an my residents are obligated to help clean up the housing 
project under the community service requirement, I must say to myself, 
that is a real plus for my program. If my residents are obligated to 
participate in things like community watch programs, I must think that 
is a plus for my program.
  I would also comment on two aspects of this whole issue of self-
sufficiency. One of the things that all of us who have visited with our 
housing projects have come to understand is that to a greater and 
greater extent, housing or shelter is just one part of the challenge.
  Many housing projects, of course, work closely with other community 
service organizations, such as community action programs. It is the 
rest of the services to residents that is often as, if not more 
important than the shelter aspect, although these services may be tied 
into shelter.
  Self-sufficiency is a very positive and very important goal. What 
this Congress is saying with this particular provision is that there 
should be an obligation to look at these issues in a much more dramatic 
way, recognizing that many housing projects do a pretty good job in 
this area at this time.
  I would like to return just for a moment to the Milwaukee model which 
has been represented to this Member as one of the most successful 
public housing projects in the country. I would point out that in the 
Milwaukee project a contractual relationship is required between 
tenants and the city of Milwaukee. The first two provisions are rather 
strenuous, especially the second one, but it is a very interesting 
model.
  Provision No. 1 reads that as an occupant of public housing, the 
occupant will complete an employability assessment; No. 2 reads that 
the occupant understands and agrees that he or she

[[Page H2207]]

must abide by the recommendations of the employability plan developed 
as a result of that assessment.
  What these two points are in this Milwaukee model that has been 
represented to be one of the more successful programs in the country is 
exactly this: self-sufficiency. Based upon this kind of model, based 
upon discussions with program directors in areas that I am familiar 
with, I am impressed that it is not enough to look at public housing 
simply as a shelter program. Self-sufficiency is a very appropriate 
goal to move toward, recognizing again that the requirement is a modest 
additional burden.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I want to respond and say no, I can see that the gentleman has 
defined it as not an unfunded mandate. It does require them to spend 
more money out of the same pot they are getting. My experience with a 
lot of housing authorities is they are underfunded already. But it also 
requires them to spend money on a lot of bureaucracy and paperwork. It 
does not provide one job trainer. It does not provide one person to 
find anybody any employment. What it does is mandate them to sit down 
and sign contracts with people, people who have no particular knowledge 
about this, and to say here is when I promise to move out of public 
housing. I promise to do this.
  I am all for these goals, but they ought to be treated as real. This 
notion that wishing will make it so and that having an overburdened 
housing authority administer of people, sign these contracts with the 
tenants when nothing in here adds anybody a job, it does not create a 
job, it does not provide a job counselor, it is just a feel-good 
bureaucratic requirement of the sort that if it were not dealing with 
poor people and housing, Republicans would be belittling. But because 
it deals with the poor people and housing, they are all for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Jackson].
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask a question of the chairman, if he would 
join me in a colloquy for about 30 seconds.
  I wondered if the gentleman had any idea of the number of residents 
in the Milwaukee model and/or the costs of implementation of the 
Milwaukee model in Milwaukee, particularly as it has been applied in 
the public housing authorities.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LEACH. I apologize to the gentleman. I do not have those 
statistics with me. I will say it has been represented that this 
Milwaukee model has been very successful. As the gentleman knows, the 
whole Wisconsin turnaround in the whole area of welfare has been as 
impressive a turnaround as any in the country.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have no argument that the 
Milwaukee model may be a successful model. I am simply suggesting that 
there may be costs associated with the Milwaukee model, and if there 
are costs associated with the Milwaukee model, and we multiply that 
times public housing authorities across the country, and since we are 
mandating a Federal law that requires public housing authorities to 
follow this particular model, we are simply suggesting that there 
should be costs associated or funds appropriated from our Congress in 
order to make that model possible for all public housing authorities.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Hooley].

                              {time}  1745

  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong 
support for the Frank-Jackson amendment. As a former board member of 
the Clackamas County Housing Authority, I have firsthand experience in 
managing public housing. Having worked through the bureaucracy and 
redtape myself, I know that we need to restore some local control and 
increase efficiency.
  I agree with many of the underlying goals of H.R. 2. The sponsors of 
the bill have argued, and I agree, that we need to do more to increase 
flexibility for local housing authorities and reduce unwarranted rules 
and regulations. We need to ensure that our scarce resources are being 
spent to provide affordable housing and quality services in the most 
cost efficient manner.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 2 imposes a serious new unfunded mandate on 
public housing authorities in the form of a so-called self-sufficiency 
contract. While the bill would mandate that public housing authorities 
develop self-sufficiency agreements for each tenant and mandatory 
community service requirements, it does not authorize any funding to 
assist housing authorities in dealing with this administrative 
nightmare.
  I have spoken with many of the housing authority directors in Oregon, 
and they have all expressed strong opposition to this burdensome 
requirement which would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to 
implement. In fact, the Portland Housing Authority has estimated that 
the new self-sufficiency requirement could easily add $400,000 to the 
operating cost. This amendment would ensure that in the absence of 
sufficient funding to cover the costs of this mandate, public housing 
authorities will have discretion over whether to implement a self-
sufficiency and community work program.
  This is not an issue of volunteerism and community service. I support 
the voluntary efforts to increase community service and participation 
that frankly are underway in many of the communities across this 
country.
  H.R. 2 cloaks the issue of costly unfunded mandates and compulsory 
work requirements behind the veil of volunteerism. Do not be fooled by 
the rhetoric. Self-sufficiency contracts impose a costly new burden on 
housing authorities that are already struggling to operate with 
shrinking budgets and increasing demand.
  If we insist on imposing standard community work and self-sufficiency 
requirements on local housing authorities, we then must provide them 
with funding to meet that goal. If we want to provide local control and 
increased efficiency, we need to listen to our local housing authority 
directors, who strongly support this amendment as an alternative to the 
unfunded mandate of H.R. 2.
  I urge my colleagues to take a stand against unfunded mandates and 
support the Frank-Jackson amendment.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Baker].
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Lazio] for yielding this time to me and would like to observe that the 
requirements we are talking about, the so-called self-sufficiency 
requirements, Mr. Chairman, are several in nature, and I would perhaps 
ask that the gentleman might respond to a question to make it more 
clear to me.
  One of the requirements is to supervise the work that would be 
engaged in under the work for benefit plan as has been outlined 
earlier. I am also understanding there is a separate part of the 
sufficiency requirement which would require that authority to visit 
with housing tenants to develop a plan. Is this a plan similar to, say, 
in the event a family gets in trouble with a credit card debt and they 
go to family debt counselors and they sit down with an individual and 
say here is what I owe, here is what I make, help me out; is it that 
kind of counseling process we are going through where an individual 
sits down and says I am in public housing, and here are my skills, and 
here is where I intended to be, or what is it that the gentleman is 
trying to require because it has been referred to as a kind of a Rube 
Goldberg thing?
  Mr. Chairman, I think we are owed an explanation as to where we go on 
this. What does this do?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, the most cost effective thing 
that we can do is to move people to self-sufficiency. The goal here is 
to do just that, to improve neighborhoods, especially low-income 
neighborhoods and public housing areas and to get people, if we can, to 
focus on what they need to do to get to the end game, which will be in 
my opinion a job that will help support their family. The concept is, 
if

[[Page H2208]]

I can, to work with the housing authority so that there can be ongoing 
discussion on how to get there, what path do we need to take to get to 
that end game?
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman ask, for instance, if 
they have job skills, and if they do not, does he suggest where they 
might go to get job training?
  Is that sort of part of this process?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Yes, I would imagine it would be.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, so the short statement would be we are going 
to require housing authorities to spend some money to help the 
occupants finally get a plan for themselves, perhaps their family, to 
get out of public housing?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, some of the most important work 
that is being done with the homeless right now involves supportive 
services and the type of counseling.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, where people sat down 
with and where we could discuss what needs were needed to be met, how 
we got there and how we dealt with the inherent problems that people 
face and challenges they face that have led to them being in public 
housing to begin with?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what we are 
trying to do here.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, if I could reclaim my time, the gentleman is 
saying out of the $2.9 billion we are appropriating to housing 
authorities for operations, he is going to spend, I think the gentleman 
said, $35 million of this to actually help the occupants find a family 
plan and get on with life and perhaps get a job and then maybe even 
leave public housing.
  That is what this is about?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, that is true. I would also add 
that this bill saves money. It saves in administrative expenses. And, 
yes, in this one area there are some additional requests in terms of 
expanding the mission, but overall this bill is a saver both for 
housing authorities and for the Federal Government.
  Mr. BAKER. So if I am understanding, the bill in its present form 
would save us some money, help occupants of public housing ultimately 
get a job, perhaps leave public housing, and that is what is being 
objected to?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. It is.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The gentleman could not be more wrong. We are not objecting to 
efforts to help people find jobs because there are not any in here. 
This has nothing to do with finding jobs. This has to do with having 
everybody sign a contract that has no meaning, no particular force 
apparently, and it is simply a lot of bureaucratic paperwork.
  Apparently the notion is that earning a living never occurred to 
these poor people, that they were living in public housing and it never 
occurred to them that a job would be better than not a job because this 
does not provide job training, it does not provide job matching, it 
provides no services. It simply mandates that every housing authority 
sign a contract.
  Now, some housing authorities might find that useful, but here is the 
point that I want to just reiterate. As the gentlewoman from Oregon 
said, this is a mandate from the Federal Government that every housing 
authority in America will go about that job in exactly this way. If 
they decide they have got to concentrate on 20 to 30 percent of the 
people who have a chance of being employed and they would do better 
working with them than with others, they cannot do that. They have to 
equally sign one of these pieces of paper with everybody.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time to me. I just want to make this point quickly 
distinguishing between this provision and the last provision we were 
debating.
  The volunteer mandate requirement is a bad idea which was wasteful. 
This is a wasteful idea and therefore is bad. If we are going to 
require local governments to do something wasteful, at least we ought 
to be paying for it, and that is the point I want to make. There is a 
difference between being bad and therefore wasteful. This one is 
wasteful and therefore bad.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
North Carolina, and I concede he is a man of his minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The idea, Mr. Chairman, that community work or self-sufficiency is 
wasteful or ridiculous or foolish I think mocks the attempts that some 
communities are making from Charlotte to Milwaukee to try and 
incorporate the sense of reconnecting people with their civic 
responsibility and helping out in a broad range of community service 
activities in their own backyard to try and better that community, 
better that neighborhood, better that project, even better that hall.
  These efforts are valid, important efforts. Their aim is not to look 
the other way and just to maintain people. Their efforts ought to help 
transform, to deal with the root causes of poverty, to give people the 
tools to help them build those tools that they will need to go out, to 
graduate from public housing and then to make their own choices about 
where they can live, what they can do for their family. These are 
important, valid initiatives.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds 
to say that I hope in his closing remarks the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Lazio] will tell us what those tools are. As far as the tools for 
getting better in the self-sufficiency, I have not found a tool. I did 
find an old tool catalogue that they are allowed to kind of read 
through, but nothing in here gets them any closer to a tool.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 3 
minutes and 10 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to 
thank my friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank, and the gentleman from 
Illinois Mr. Jackson, for offering this amendment. I think that this is 
an important amendment which gets to the heart of what this committee 
is all about.
  I mean, what we see here is an attempt to use housing policy to 
create a new social engineering kind of notion that might appeal to a 
broad number of Americans but nevertheless is in fact social policy 
enacted under the housing bill.
  Effectively, what the policy that I hear being talked about says is 
very simply that poor people work harder if we take things away, but 
rich people work harder if we give things to them. It is a kind of 
socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor. That is 
effectively the underlying message that this amendment really gets to, 
and I think that is the underlying message that is reinforced by H.R. 
2.
  We are not suggesting for a second that people who get a benefit 
should not work. I agree wholeheartedly. People that get a benefit 
ought to work. But what I do not think is that we ought to provide and 
take away from the very public housing authorities, all of those 
housing authorities that we love to now walk in front of, Democrats and 
Republicans alike, point out these great old housing monstrosities 
where we warehouse the poor, and we say look at this terrible thing 
that Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic House of Representatives and 
Congress and the like have brought about, all the support for public 
housing that just does not work. Look at it. Obviously this is terrible 
policy.
  So what is our result? How are we going to fix that? What we are 
going to do in order to fix it is we are going to take some money away 
from it. We are going to say we are going to cut the budget. We cut it 
from $28 billion down to $20 billion. Now we are going to take the most 
important funding mechanism that housing authorities have to serve the 
poorest people in this country and provide them with basic shelter. We 
are going to go to the single fund that they rely on the most, their 
operating subsidies, and we are going to say, ``We're going to go in, 
and we're going to give you another $65 million task. It is going to 
create a requirement where you're going to have to go

[[Page H2209]]

out and hire 1,100 more people, but we're not going to give you a penny 
to do it because we think we can get some votes if we stand up there 
and look tough on the poor,'' if we point our finger at them and say, 
``You're sitting in that public housing, you're watching Oprah Winfrey, 
you're sitting there doing all these things, not working.''
  Mr. Chairman, if we stand up there and look like we are really 
getting tough on them, boy, that is going to appeal to the American 
people? I say let us reach inside and perhaps find a higher purpose 
than just getting votes. Why do we not try to fix public housing in 
this bill? Why do we not try to provide them not with $2.9 billion for 
their necessary operating subsidies? But HUD itself and the housing 
authorities themselves say that they need $3.3 billion.
  And I understand they are going to come back and tell me that 
President Clinton only authorized $3.1 billion. They came in at $2.9. 
The truth of the matter is both numbers are too small. If we are really 
interested in trying to provide public housing, the kind of decent 
honorable housing that we expect as all Americans to receive, then we 
have to give them the full funding, which is $3.3 billion, and I just 
would appeal to the chairman of this committee to stop using this bill 
to ram through this housing and instead ram through good housing 
policy.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  As my colleagues know, once again this is the third day of debate of 
the bill, and the question is asked why could we not just do something 
to fix public housing? That is exactly what we are here in the business 
of doing.
  Now, there are people who argue against change in this body, there 
are people who argue that what we are doing is fine, that it is OK to 
maintain super concentrations of poverty, that we should not be worried 
about transforming people to self-sufficiency. But this debate for the 
last 3 days and the days that will follow that we will debate this bill 
is in fact about self-sufficiency, it is about transformation, it is 
about community work and the work ethic and responsibility and those 
values that we think are important in every American community.
  We reject the premise that this is entirely about money. Public 
housing authorities get $3 billion. In Chicago along State Street there 
are buildings that we in this body, people in this body, would not want 
to sleep in the worst day of their life, yet we have children, American 
children, living there with broken windows and broken doors and 
hallways that are filthy.

                              {time}  1800

  In New Orleans in a place called Desire, perversely, ditto. In those 
two examples, Mr. Chairman, it was not a lack of money, because those 
housing authorities left money on the table. Those housing authorities 
were failing in their basic mission to provide good, healthy housing 
for their own people while they still had money in their pockets.
  So the argument that this is all about money and this is not about 
management and responsibility and transformation is to mock the facts, 
the facts. The facts are that in some American cities we have housing 
authorities that have been abysmal failures despite the billions that 
we have spent, and yet we look the other way and suggest that the only 
way to deal with this is to spend more money, but to continue the same 
process. We say on this side, and for many on the other side of the 
aisle, that that is nonsense.
  I have been to Chicago, I have been to New York City, I have been to 
east New York, I have been to Washington, DC to see public housing. I 
have been to New Orleans, I have been to L.A., I have been to Phoenix. 
I know the face of public housing. What is amazing here is that the 
public housing residents themselves are the ones that are calling for 
much of this change. They are not the forces of defending the status 
quo, they are the ones that recognize that self-sufficiency and 
transformation and community work are valid, proper goals.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 133, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank] will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 133, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: Amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Watt]; amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


            Amendment Offered by Mr. WATT of North Carolina

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Watt] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 140, 
noes 286, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 103]

                               AYES--140

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Stark
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Wexler
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--286

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)

[[Page H2210]]


     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Andrews
     Becerra
     Clay
     Kolbe
     Reyes
     Schiff
     Waxman

                              {time}  1823

  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York, Mrs. CHENOWETH, and Messrs. RIGGS, ENSIGN, 
MORAN of Virginia, and DEUTSCH changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD, and Mr. LEVIN changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


            Amendment Offered By Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 168, 
noes 253, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 104]

                               AYES--168

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--253

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Andrews
     Becerra
     Clay
     Collins
     Cox
     Kolbe
     Reyes
     Schiff
     Snowbarger
     Stark
     Waxman
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1833

  Ms. KAPTUR and Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. LaHood]. Are there further amendments 
to title I?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  There is language at the desk, I understand. We have been working out 
some language with the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters]. The 
gentlewoman has graciously permitted us to work together with her to 
rewrite the amendment that she has offered, which is Amendment No. 26, 
in the Record.
  The language is now acceptable to this Member, and I believe it is 
acceptable to the vast majority of Members on this side of the aisle. 
If I correctly state the position of the gentlewoman,

[[Page H2211]]

she is consensually now offering this new language. We would be 
supportive of that.
  I thank the gentlewoman for her flexibility in meeting our mutual 
concerns, which I think will lead to the protection of the people that 
she is concerned about, without adding additional layers of 
bureaucracy. I support the amendment.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Waters

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Amendment offered by Ms. Waters:
       Page 57, strike lines 14 through 22 and insert the 
     following:
       (b) Exclusion From Administrative Procedure of Grievances 
     Concerning Evictions From Public Housing Involving Health, 
     Safety, or Peaceful Enjoyment.--A public housing agency may 
     exclude from its procedure established under subsection (a) 
     any grievance, in any jurisdiction which requires that prior 
     to eviction, a tenant be given a hearing in court, which the 
     Secretary determines provides the basic elements of due 
     process (which the Secretary shall establish by rule under 
     section 553 of title 5, United States Code), concerning an 
     eviction from or termination of tenancy in public housing 
     that involves any activity that threatens the health, safety, 
     or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises of other 
     tenants or employees of the public housing agency or any 
     drug-related criminal activity on or off such premises.
       In the case of any eviction from or termination of tenancy 
     in public housing not described in the preceding sentence, 
     each of the following provisions shall apply:
       (1) Such eviction or termination shall be subject to an 
     administrative grievance procedure if the tenant so evicted 
     or terminated requests a hearing under such procedure not 
     later than five days after service of notice of such eviction 
     or termination.
       (2) The public housing agency shall take final action 
     regarding a grievance under paragraph (1) not later than 
     thirty days after such notice is served.
       (3) If the public housing agency fails to provide a hearing 
     under the grievance procedure pursuant to a request under 
     paragraph (1) and take final action regarding the grievance 
     before the expiration of the 30-day period under paragraph 
     (2), the notice of eviction or termination shall be 
     considered void and shall not be given any force or effect.
       (4) If a public housing authority takes final action on a 
     grievance for any eviction or termination, the tenant and any 
     member of the tenant's household shall not have any right in 
     connection with any subsequent eviction or termination notice 
     to request or be afforded any administrative grievance 
     hearing during the 1-year period beginning upon the date of 
     the final action.

  Mr. BAKER of Louisiana (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Lazio] for taking the time to help work out his concerns 
with the amendment that I had offered.
  My amendment simply tried to make sure that there was some process by 
which people could, in the housing projects, could go through a 
grievance procedure.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] certainly thought that there 
should be some kind of informal procedure by which they could address 
their concerns. This will do it. This will put a time limit so that 
they, in fact, would have to bring this to the attention of the 
authorities within 5 days. And if they do that, then we put another 
time limit and the housing authority would have to react within a 30-
day period of time.
  I think this addresses the concerns of those who thought that these 
go on and on and on; they are not resolved. And even for those who go 
to court, they have used up a great deal of time in the bureaucracy of 
the housing authority addressing these issues. It appears that in some 
cases they may have been abusing the process by coming time and time 
again through the grievance procedure.
  While I do believe it would have been best to just have one without 
limit, I accept this and so does the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. 
Kilpatrick]. We believe that rather than shut it down altogether, this 
does leave a door open and lets us see how it works. We believe that at 
least it would give people the ability to address their concerns 
without having to go into court and bear the expense of that. I do 
appreciate the opportunity to do that.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to title I?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title II.
  The text of title II is as follows:

                        TITLE II--PUBLIC HOUSING

                        Subtitle A--Block Grants

     SEC. 201. BLOCK GRANT CONTRACTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall enter into contracts 
     with public housing agencies under which--
       (1) the Secretary agrees to make a block grant under this 
     title, in the amount provided under section 202(c), for 
     assistance for low-income housing to the public housing 
     agency for each fiscal year covered by the contract; and
       (2) the agency agrees--
       (A) to provide safe, clean, and healthy housing that is 
     affordable to low-income families and services for families 
     in such housing;
       (B) to operate, or provide for the operation, of such 
     housing in a financially sound manner;
       (C) to use the block grant amounts in accordance with this 
     title and the local housing management plan for the agency 
     that complies with the requirements of section 106;
       (D) to involve residents of housing assisted with block 
     grant amounts in functions and decisions relating to 
     management and the quality of life in such housing;
       (E) that the management of the public housing of the agency 
     shall be subject to actions authorized under subtitle D of 
     title V;
       (F) that the Secretary may take actions under section 205 
     with respect to improper use of grant amounts provided under 
     the contract; and
       (G) to otherwise comply with the requirements under this 
     title.
       (6) Small Public Housing Agency Capital Grant Option.--For 
     any fiscal year, upon the request of the Governor of the 
     State, the Secretary shall make available directly to the 
     State, from the amounts otherwise included in the block 
     grants for all public housing agencies in such State which 
     own or operate less than 100 dwelling units, \1/2\ of that 
     portion of such amounts that is derived from the capital 
     improvement allocations for such agencies pursuant to section 
     203(c)(1) or 203(d)(2), as applicable. The Governor of the 
     State will have the responsibility to distribute all of such 
     funds, in amounts determined by the Governor, only to meet 
     the exceptional capital improvement requirements for the 
     various public housing agencies in the State which operate 
     less than 100 dwelling units: Provided, however, That for 
     States where Federal funds provided to the State are subject 
     to appropriation action by the State legislature, the capital 
     funds made available to the Governor under this subsection 
     shall be subject to such appropriation by the State 
     legislature.
       (c) Modification.--Contracts and agreements between the 
     Secretary and a public housing agency may not be amended in a 
     manner which would--
       (1) impair the rights of--
       (A) leaseholders for units assisted pursuant to a contract 
     or agreement; or
       (B) the holders of any outstanding obligations of the 
     public housing agency involved for which annual contributions 
     have been pledged; or
       (2) provide for payment of block grant amounts under this 
     title in an amount exceeding the allocation for the agency 
     determined under section 204.

     Any rule of law contrary to this subsection shall be deemed 
     inapplicable.

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

       (a) Authority.--The Secretary shall make block grants under 
     this title to eligible public housing agencies in accordance 
     with block grant contracts under section 201.
       (b) Performance Funds.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish 2 funds for 
     the provision of grants to eligible public housing agencies 
     under this title, as follows:
       (A) Capital fund.--A capital fund to provide capital and 
     management improvements to public housing developments.
       (B) Operating fund.--An operating fund for public housing 
     operations.
       (2) Flexibility of funding.--
       (A) In general.--A public housing agency may use up to 20 
     percent of the amounts from a grant under this title that are 
     allocated and provided from the capital fund for activities 
     that are eligible under section 203(a)(2) to be funded with 
     amounts from the operating fund.
       (B) Full flexibility for small pha's.--In the case of a 
     public housing agency that owns or operates less than 250 
     public housing dwelling units and is (in the determination of 
     the Secretary) operating and maintaining its public housing 
     in a safe, clean, and healthy condition, the agency may use 
     amounts from a grant under this title for any eligible 
     activities under section 203(a), regardless of the fund from 
     which the amounts were allocated and provided.
       (c) Amount of Grants.--The amount of the grant under this 
     title for a public housing agency for a fiscal year shall be 
     the amount of the allocation for the agency determined

[[Page H2212]]

     under section 204, except as otherwise provided in this title 
     and title V.
       (d) Eligibility.--A public housing agency shall be an 
     eligible public housing agency with respect to a fiscal year 
     for purposes of this title only if--
       (1) the Secretary has entered into a block grant contract 
     with the agency;
       (2) the agency has submitted a local housing management 
     plan to the Secretary for such fiscal year;
       (3) the plan has been determined to comply with the 
     requirements under section 106 and the Secretary has not 
     notified the agency that the plan fails to comply with such 
     requirements;
       (4) the agency is exempt from local taxes, as provided 
     under subsection (e), or receives a contribution, as provided 
     under such subsection;
       (5) no member of the board of directors or other governing 
     body of the agency, or the executive director, has been 
     convicted of a felony;
       (6) the agency has entered into an agreement providing for 
     local cooperation in accordance with subsection (f); and
       (7) the agency has not been disqualified for a grant 
     pursuant to section 205(a) or title V.
       (e) Payments in Lieu of State and Local Taxation of Public 
     Housing Developments.--
       (1) Exemption from taxation.--A public housing agency may 
     receive a block grant under this title only if--
       (A)(i) the developments of the agency (exclusive of any 
     portions not assisted with amounts provided under this title) 
     are exempt from all real and personal property taxes levied 
     or imposed by the State, city, county, or other political 
     subdivision; and
       (ii) the public housing agency makes payments in lieu of 
     taxes to such taxing authority equal to 10 percent of the 
     sum, for units charged in the developments of the agency, of 
     the difference between the gross rent and the utility cost, 
     or such lesser amount as is--
       (I) prescribed by State law;
       (II) agreed to by the local governing body in its agreement 
     under subsection (f) for local cooperation with the public 
     housing agency or under a waiver by the local governing 
     body; or
       (III) due to failure of a local public body or bodies other 
     than the public housing agency to perform any obligation 
     under such agreement; or
       (B) the agency complies with the requirements under 
     subparagraph (A) with respect to public housing developments 
     (including public housing units in mixed-income 
     developments), but the agency agrees that the units other 
     than public housing units in any mixed-income developments 
     (as such term is defined in section 221(c)(2)) shall be 
     subject to any otherwise applicable real property taxes 
     imposed by the State, city, county or other political 
     subdivision.
       (2) Effect of failure to exempt from taxation.--
     Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a public housing agency that 
     does not comply with the requirements under such paragraph 
     may receive a block grant under this title, but only if the 
     State, city, county, or other political subdivision in which 
     the development is situated contributes, in the form of cash 
     or tax remission, the amount by which the taxes paid with 
     respect to the development exceed 10 percent of the gross 
     rent and utility cost charged in the development.
       (f) Local Cooperation.--In recognition that there should be 
     local determination of the need for low-income housing to 
     meet needs not being adequately met by private enterprise, 
     the Secretary may not make any grant under this title to a 
     public housing agency unless the governing body of the 
     locality involved has entered into an agreement with the 
     agency providing for the local cooperation required by the 
     Secretary pursuant to this title.
       (g) Exception.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), the 
     Secretary may make a grant under this title for a public 
     housing agency that is not an eligible public housing agency 
     but only for the period necessary to secure, in accordance 
     with this title, an alternative public housing agency for the 
     public housing of the ineligible agency.
       (h) Recapture of Capital Assistance Amounts.--The Secretary 
     may recapture, from any grant amounts made available to a 
     public housing agency from the capital fund, any portion of 
     such amounts that are not used or obligated by the public 
     housing agency for use for eligible activities under section 
     203(a)(1) (or dedicated for use pursuant to section 
     202(b)(2)(A)) before the expiration of the 24-month period 
     beginning upon the award of such grant to the agency.

     SEC. 203. ELIGIBLE AND REQUIRED ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Eligible Activities.--Except as provided in subsection 
     (b) and in section 202(b)(2), grant amounts allocated and 
     provided from the capital fund and grant amounts allocated 
     and provided from the operating fund may be used for the 
     following activities:
       (1) Capital fund activities.--Grant amounts from the 
     capital fund may be used for--
       (A) the production and modernization of public housing 
     developments, including the redesign, reconstruction, and 
     reconfiguration of public housing sites and buildings and the 
     production of mixed-income developments;
       (B) vacancy reduction;
       (C) addressing deferred maintenance needs and the 
     replacement of dwelling equipment;
       (D) planned code compliance;
       (E) management improvements;
       (F) demolition and replacement under section 261;
       (G) tenant relocation;
       (H) capital expenditures to facilitate programs to improve 
     the economic empowerment and self-sufficiency of public 
     housing tenants; and
       (I) capital expenditures to improve the security and safety 
     of residents.
       (2) Operating fund activities.--Grant amounts from the 
     operating fund may be used for--
       (A) procedures and systems to maintain and ensure the 
     efficient management and operation of public housing units;
       (B) activities to ensure a program of routine preventative 
     maintenance;
       (C) anti-crime and anti-drug activities, including the 
     costs of providing adequate security for public housing 
     tenants;
       (D) activities related to the provision of services, 
     including service coordinators for elderly persons or persons 
     with disabilities;
       (E) activities to provide for management and participation 
     in the management of public housing by public housing 
     tenants;
       (F) the costs associated with the operation and management 
     of mixed-income developments;
       (G) the costs of insurance;
       (H) the energy costs associated with public housing units, 
     with an emphasis on energy conservation;
       (I) the costs of administering a public housing community 
     work program under section 105, including the costs of any 
     related insurance needs; and
       (J) activities in connection with a homeownership program 
     for public housing residents under subtitle D, including 
     providing financing or assistance for purchasing housing, or 
     the provision of financial assistance to resident management 
     corporations or resident councils to obtain training, 
     technical assistance, and educational assistance to promote 
     homeownership opportunities.
       (b) Required Conversion of Assistance for Public Housing to 
     Rental Housing Assistance.--
       ((1) Requirement.--A public housing agency that receives 
     grant amounts under this title shall provide assistance in 
     the form of rental housing assistance under title III, or 
     appropriate site revitalization or other appropriate capital 
     improvements approved by the Secretary, in lieu of assisting 
     the operation and modernization of any building or buildings 
     of public housing, if the agency provides sufficient evidence 
     to the Secretary that the building or buildings--
       (A) are on the same or contiguous sites;
       (B) consist of more than 300 dwelling units;
       (C) have a vacancy rate of at least 10 percent for dwelling 
     units not in funded, on-schedule modernization programs;
       (D) are identified as distressed housing for which the 
     public housing agency cannot assure the long-term viability 
     as public housing through reasonable revitalization, density 
     reduction, or achievement of a broader range of household 
     income; and
       (E) have an estimated cost of continued operation and 
     modernization as public housing that exceeds the cost of 
     providing choice-based rental assistance under title III for 
     all families in occupancy, based on appropriate indicators of 
     cost (such as the percentage of the total development cost 
     required for modernization).

     Public housing agencies shall identify properties that meet 
     the definition of subparagraphs (A) through (E) and shall 
     consult with the appropriate public housing residents and the 
     appropriate unit of general local government in identifying 
     such properties.
       (2) Use of other amounts.--In addition to grant amounts 
     under this title attributable (pursuant to the formulas under 
     section 204) to the building or buildings identified under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary may use amounts provided in 
     appropriation Acts for choice-based housing assistance under 
     title III for families residing in such building or buildings 
     or for appropriate site revitalization or other appropriate 
     capital improvements approved by the Secretary.
       (3) Enforcement.--The Secretary shall take appropriate 
     action to ensure conversion of any building or buildings 
     identified under paragraph (1) and any other appropriate 
     action under this subsection, if the public housing agency 
     fails to take appropriate action under this subsection.
       (4) Failure of pha's to comply with conversion 
     requirement.--If the Secretary determines that--
       (A) a public housing agency has failed under paragraph (1) 
     to identify a building or buildings in a timely manner,
       (B) a public housing agency has failed to identify one or 
     more buildings which the Secretary determines should have 
     been identified under paragraph (1), or
       (C) one or more of the buildings identified by the public 
     housing agency pursuant to paragraph (1) should not, in the 
     determination of the Secretary, have been identified under 
     that paragraph,

     the Secretary may identify a building or buildings for 
     conversion and take other appropriate action pursuant to this 
     subsection.
       (5) Cessation of unnecessary spending.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, if, in the determination of the 
     Secretary, a building or buildings meets or is likely to meet 
     the criteria set forth in paragraph (1), the Secretary may 
     direct the public housing agency to cease additional spending 
     in connection with such building or buildings, except to the 
     extent that additional spending

[[Page H2213]]

     is necessary to ensure safe, clean, and healthy housing until 
     the Secretary determines or approves an appropriate course of 
     action with respect to such building or buildings under this 
     subsection.
       (6) Use of budget authority.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, if a building or buildings are identified 
     pursuant to paragraph (1), the Secretary may authorize or 
     direct the transfer, to the choice-based or tenant-based 
     assistance program of such agency or to appropriate site 
     revitalization or other capital improvements approved by the 
     Secretary, of--
       (A) in the case of an agency receiving assistance under the 
     comprehensive improvement assistance program, any amounts 
     obligated by the Secretary for the modernization of such 
     building or buildings pursuant to section 14 of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect immediately before 
     the effective date of the repeal under section 601(b));
       (B) in the case of an agency receiving public housing 
     modernization assistance by formula pursuant to such section 
     14, any amounts provided to the agency which are attributable 
     pursuant to the formula for allocating such assistance to 
     such building or buildings;
       (C) in the case of an agency receiving assistance for the 
     major reconstruction of obsolete projects, any amounts 
     obligated by the Secretary for the major reconstruction of 
     such building or buildings pursuant to section 5(j)(2) of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937, as in effect immediately 
     before the effective date of the repeal under section 601(b); 
     and
       (D) in the case of an agency receiving assistance pursuant 
     to the formulas under section 204, any amounts provided to 
     the agency which are attributable pursuant to the formulas 
     for allocating such assistance to such building or buildings.
       (7) Relocation requirements.--Any public housing agency 
     carrying out conversion of public housing under this 
     subsection shall--
       (A) notify the families residing in the public housing 
     development subject to the conversion, in accordance with any 
     guidelines issued by the Secretary governing such 
     notifications, that--
       (i) the development will be removed from the inventory of 
     the public housing agency; and
       (ii) the families displaced by such action will receive 
     choice-based housing assistance or occupancy in a unit 
     operated or assisted by the public housing agency;
       (B) ensure that each family that is a resident of the 
     development is relocated to other safe, clean, and healthy 
     affordable housing, which is, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, housing of the family's choice, including 
     choice-based assistance under title III (provided that with 
     respect to choice-based assistance, the preceding requirement 
     shall be fulfilled only upon the relocation of such family 
     into such housing);
       (C) provide any necessary counseling for families displaced 
     by such action to facilitate relocation; and
       (D) provide any reasonable relocation expenses for families 
     displaced by such action.
       (8) Transition.--Any amounts made available to a public 
     housing agency to carry out section 202 of the Departments of 
     Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (enacted as 
     section 101(e) of Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and 
     Appropriations Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-134; 110 Stat. 
     1321-279)) may be used, to the extent or in such amounts as 
     are or have been provided in advance in appropriation Acts, 
     to carry out this section. The Secretary shall provide for 
     public housing agencies to conform and continue actions 
     taken under such section 202 in accordance with the 
     requirements under this section.
       (c) Extension of Deadlines.--The Secretary may, for a 
     public housing agency, extend any deadline established 
     pursuant to this section or a local housing management plan 
     for up to an additional 5 years if the Secretary makes a 
     determination that the deadline is impracticable.
       (d) Compliance With Plan.--The local housing management 
     plan submitted by a public housing agency (including any 
     amendments to the plan), unless determined under section 107 
     not to comply with the requirements under section 106, shall 
     be binding upon the Secretary and the public housing agency 
     and the agency shall use any grant amounts provided under 
     this title for eligible activities under subsection (a) in 
     accordance with the plan. This subsection may not be 
     construed to preclude changes or amendments to the plan, as 
     authorized under section 107 or any actions authorized by 
     this Act to be taken without regard to a local housing 
     management plan.
       (e) Eligible Activities for Increased Income.--Any public 
     housing agency that derives increased nonrental or rental 
     income, as referred to in subsection (c)(2)(B) or (d)(1)(D) 
     of section 204 or pursuant to provision of mixed-income 
     developments under section 221(c)(2), may use such amounts 
     for any eligible activity under paragraph (1) or (2) of 
     subsection (a) of this section or for providing choice-based 
     housing assistance under title III.

     SEC. 204. DETERMINATION OF GRANT ALLOCATION.

       (a) In General.--For each fiscal year, after reserving 
     amounts under section 111 from the aggregate amount made 
     available for the fiscal year for carrying out this title, 
     the Secretary shall allocate any remaining amounts among 
     eligible public housing agencies in accordance with this 
     section, so that the sum of all of the allocations for all 
     eligible authorities is equal to such remaining amount.
       (b) Allocation Amount.--The Secretary shall determine the 
     amount of the allocation for each eligible public housing 
     agency, which shall be--
       (1) for any fiscal year beginning after the enactment of a 
     law containing the formulas described in paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) of subsection (c), the sum of the amounts determined for 
     the agency under each such formula; or
       (2) for any fiscal year beginning before the expiration of 
     such period, the sum of--
       (A) the operating allocation determined under subsection 
     (d)(1) for the agency; and
       (B) the capital improvement allocation determined under 
     subsection (d)(2) for the agency.
       (c) Permanent Allocation Formulas for Capital and Operating 
     Funds.--
       (1) Establishment of capital fund formula.--The formula 
     under this paragraph shall provide for allocating assistance 
     under the capital fund for a fiscal year. The formula may 
     take into account such factors as--
       (A) the number of public housing dwelling units owned or 
     operated by the public housing agency, the characteristics 
     and locations of the developments, and the characteristics of 
     the families served and to be served (including the incomes 
     of the families);
       (B) the need of the public housing agency to carry out 
     rehabilitation and modernization activities, and 
     reconstruction, production, and demolition activities related 
     to public housing dwelling units owned or operated by the 
     public housing agency, including backlog and projected future 
     needs of the agency;
       (C) the cost of constructing and rehabilitating property in 
     the area; and
       (D) the need of the public housing agency to carry out 
     activities that provided a safe and secure environment in 
     public housing units owned or operated by the public housing 
     agency.
       (2) Establishment of operating fund formula.--
       (A) In general.--The formula under this paragraph shall 
     provide for allocating assistance under the operating fund 
     for a fiscal year. The formula may take into account such 
     factors as--
       (i) standards for the costs of operating and reasonable 
     projections of income, taking into account the 
     characteristics and locations of the public housing 
     developments and characteristics of the families served and 
     to be served (including the incomes of the families), or the 
     costs of providing comparable services as determined in 
     accordance with criteria or a formula representing the 
     operations of a prototype well-managed public housing 
     development;
       (ii) the number of public housing dwelling units owned or 
     operated by the public housing agency;
       (iii) the need of the public housing agency to carry out 
     anti-crime and anti-drug activities, including providing 
     adequate security for public housing residents; and
       (iv) any record by the public housing agency of exemplary 
     performance in the operation of public housing.
       (B) Incentive to increase income.--The formula shall 
     provide an incentive to encourage public housing agencies to 
     increase nonrental income and to increase rental income 
     attributable to their units by encouraging occupancy by 
     families whose incomes have increase while in occupancy and 
     newly admitted families. Any such incentive shall provide 
     that the agency shall derive the full benefit of any increase 
     in nonrental or rental income, and such increase shall not 
     result in a decrease in amounts provided to the agency under 
     this title. In addition, an agency shall be permitted to 
     retain, from each fiscal year, the full benefit of such an 
     increase in nonrental or rental income, except to the extent 
     that such benefit exceeds (i) 100 percent of the total amount 
     of the operating allocation for which the agency is eligible 
     under this section, and (ii) the maximum balance permitted 
     for the agency's operating reserve under this section and any 
     regulations issued under this section.
       (C) Treatment of utility rates.--The formula shall not take 
     into account the amount of any cost reductions for a public 
     housing agency due to the difference between projected and 
     actual utility rates attributable to actions that are taken 
     by the agency which lead to such reductions, as determined by 
     the Secretary. In the case of any public housing agency that 
     receives financing from any person or entity other than the 
     Secretary or enters into a performance contract to undertake 
     energy conservation improvements in a public housing 
     development, under which the payment does not exceed the cost 
     of the energy saved as a result of the improvements during a 
     reasonable negotiated contract period, the formula shall not 
     take into account the amount of any cost reductions for 
     the agency due to the differences between projected and 
     actual utility consumption attributable to actions that 
     are taken by the agency which lead to such reductions, as 
     determined by the Secretary. Notwithstanding the preceding 
     2 sentences, after the expiration of the 10-year period 
     beginning upon the savings initially taking effect, the 
     Secretary may reduce the amount allocated to the agency 
     under the formula by up to 50 percent of such differences.
       (3) Consideration of performance, costs, and other 
     factors.--The formulas under

[[Page H2214]]

     paragraphs (1) and (2) should each reward performance and may 
     each consider appropriate factors that reflect the different 
     characteristics and sizes of public housing agencies, the 
     relative needs, revenues, costs, and capital improvements of 
     agencies, and the relative costs to agencies of operating a 
     well-managed agency that meets the performance targets for 
     the agency established in the local housing management plan 
     for the agency.
       (4) Development under negotiated rulemaking procedure.--The 
     formulas under this subsection shall be developed according 
     to procedures for issuance of regulations under the 
     negotiated rulemaking procedure under subchapter III of 
     chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, except that the 
     formulas shall not be contained in a regulation.
       (5) Report.--Not later than the expiration of the 12-month 
     period beginning upon the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall submit a report to the Congress containing 
     the proposed formulas established pursuant to paragraph (4) 
     that meets the requirements of this subsection.
       (d) Interim Allocation Requirements.--
       (1) Operating allocation.--
       (A) Applicability to appropriated amounts.--Of any amounts 
     available for allocation under this subsection for a fiscal 
     year, an amount shall be used only to provide amounts for 
     operating allocations under this paragraph for eligible 
     public housing agencies that bears the same ratio to such 
     total amount available for allocation that the amount 
     appropriated for fiscal year 1997 for operating subsidies 
     under section 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 
     bears to the sum of such operating subsidy amounts plus the 
     amounts appropriated for such fiscal year for modernization 
     under section 14 of such Act.
       (B) Determination.--The operating allocation under this 
     paragraph for a public housing agency for a fiscal year shall 
     be an amount determined by applying, to the amount to be 
     allocated under this paragraph, the formula used for 
     determining the distribution of operating subsidies for 
     fiscal year 1997 to public housing agencies (as modified 
     under subparagraphs (C) and (D)) under section 9 of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937, as in effect immediately 
     before the effective date of the repeal under section 601(b).
       (C) Treatment of chronically vacant units.--The Secretary 
     shall revise the formula referred to in subparagraph (B) so 
     that the formula does not provide any amounts, other than 
     utility costs and other necessary costs (such as costs 
     necessary for the protection of persons and property), 
     attributable to any dwelling unit of a public housing agency 
     that has been vacant continuously for 6 or more months. A 
     unit shall not be considered vacant for purposes of 
     this paragraph if the unit is unoccupied because of 
     rehabilitation or renovation that is on schedule.
       (D) Treatment of increases in income.--The Secretary shall 
     revise the formula referred to in subparagraph (B) to provide 
     an incentive to encourage public housing agencies to increase 
     nonrental income and to increase rental income attributable 
     to their units by encouraging occupancy by families whose 
     incomes have increased while in occupancy and newly admitted 
     families. Any such incentive shall provide that the agency 
     shall derive the full benefit of any increase in nonrental or 
     rental income, and such increase shall not result in a 
     decrease in amounts provided to the agency under this title. 
     In addition, an agency shall be permitted to retain, from 
     each fiscal year, the full benefit of such an increase in 
     nonrental or rental income, except that such benefit may not 
     be retained if--
       (i) the agency's operating allocation equals 100 percent of 
     the amount for which it is eligible under section 9 of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937, as in effect immediately 
     before the effective date of the repeal under section 601(b) 
     of this Act; and
       (ii) the agency's operating reserve balance is equal to the 
     maximum amount permitted under section 9 of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937, as in effect immediately before the 
     effective date of the repeal under section 601(b) of this 
     Act.
       (2) Capital improvement allocation.--
       (A) Applicability to appropriated amounts.--Of any amounts 
     available for allocation under this subsection for a fiscal 
     year, an amount shall be used only to provide amounts for 
     capital improvement allocations under this paragraph for 
     eligible public housing agencies that bears the same ratio to 
     such total amount available for allocation that the amount 
     appropriated for fiscal year 1997 for modernization under 
     section 14 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 bears to 
     the sum of such modernization amounts plus the amounts 
     appropriated for such fiscal year for operating subsidies 
     under section 9 of such Act.
       (B) Determination.--The capital improvement allocation 
     under this paragraph for an eligible public housing agency 
     for a fiscal year shall be determined by applying, to the 
     amount to be allocated under this paragraph, the formula used 
     for determining the distribution of modernization assistance 
     for fiscal year 1997 to public housing agencies under section 
     14 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as in effect 
     immediately before the effective date of the repeal under 
     section 601(b), except that the Secretary shall establish a 
     method for taking into consideration allocation of amounts 
     under the comprehensive improvement assistance program.
       (e) Eligibility of Units Acquired From Proceeds of Sales 
     Under Demolition or Disposition Plan.--If a public housing 
     agency uses proceeds from the sale of units under a 
     homeownership program in accordance with section 251 to 
     acquire additional units to be sold to low-income families, 
     the additional units shall be counted as public housing for 
     purposes of determining the amount of the allocation to the 
     agency under this section until sale by the agency, but in 
     any case no longer than 5 years.

     SEC. 205. SANCTIONS FOR IMPROPER USE OF AMOUNTS.

       (a) In General.--In addition to any other actions 
     authorized under this title, if the Secretary finds pursuant 
     to an audit under section 541 that a public housing agency 
     receiving grant amounts under this title has failed to comply 
     substantially with any provision of this title, the secretary 
     may--
       (1) terminate payments under this title to the agency;
       (2) withhold from the agency amounts from the total 
     allocation for the agency pursuant to section 204;
       (3) reduce the amount of future grant payments under this 
     title to the agency by an amount equal to the amount of such 
     payments that were not expended in accordance with this 
     title;
       (4) limit the availability of grant amounts provided to the 
     agency under this title to programs, projects, or activities 
     not affected by such failure to comply;
       (5) withhold from the agency amounts allocated for the 
     agency under title III; or
       (6) order other corrective action with respect to the 
     agency.
       (b) Termination of Compliance Action.--If the Secretary 
     takes action under subsection (a) with respect to a public 
     housing agency, the Secretary shall--
       (1) in the case of action under subsection (a)(1), resume 
     payments of grant amounts under this title to the agency in 
     the full amount of the total allocation under section 204 for 
     the agency at the time that the secretary first determines 
     that the agency will comply with the provisions of this 
     title;
       (2) in the case of action under paragraph (2), (5), or (6) 
     of subsection (a), make withheld amounts available as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate to ensure that the agency 
     complies with the provisions of this title; or
       (3) in the case of action under subsection (a)(4), release 
     such restrictions at the time that the Secretary first 
     determines that the agency will comply with the provisions of 
     this title.

           Subtitle B--Admissions and Occupancy Requirements

     SEC. 221. LOW-INCOME HOUSING REQUIREMENT.

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

     Any development, or portion thereof, referred to in this 
     paragraph for which activities under section 203(a)(1) are 
     conducted using amounts from a grant under this title shall 
     be maintained and used as public housing for the 20-year 
     period beginning upon the receipt of such grant. Any 
     public housing development, or portion thereof, that 
     received the benefit of a grant pursuant to section 14 of 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937 shall be maintained 
     and used as public housing for the 20-year period 
     beginning upon receipt of such amounts.
       (2) Mixed income developments.--Amounts may be used for 
     eligible activities under section 203(a)(1) for mixed-income 
     developments, which shall be a housing development that--
       (A) contains dwelling units that are available for 
     occupancy by families other than low-income families;
       (B) contains a number of dwelling units--
       (i) which units are made available (by master contract or 
     individual lease) for occupancy only by low- and very low-
     income families identified by the public housing agency;
       (ii) which number is not less than a reasonable number of 
     units, including related amenities, taking into account the 
     amount of the assistance provided by the agency compared to 
     the total investment (including costs of operation) in the 
     development;
       (iii) which units are subject to the statutory and 
     regulatory requirements of the public housing program, except 
     that the Secretary may grant appropriate waivers to such 
     statutory and regulatory requirements if reductions in 
     funding or other changes to the program make continued 
     application of such requirements impracticable;

[[Page H2215]]

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

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

     SEC. 222. FAMILY ELIGIBILITY.

       (a) In General.--Dwelling units in public housing may be 
     rented only to families who are low-income families at the 
     time of their initial occupancy of such units.
       (b) Income Mix Within Developments.--A public housing 
     agency may establish and utilize income-mix criteria for the 
     selection of residents for dwelling units in public housing 
     developments that limit admission to a development by 
     selecting applicants having incomes appropriate so that the 
     mix of incomes of families occupying the development at any 
     time is proportional to the income mix in the eligible 
     population of the jurisdiction of the agency at such time, as 
     adjusted to take into consideration the severity of 
     housing need. Any criteria established under this 
     subsection shall be subject to the provisions of 
     subsection (c).
       (c) Income Mix.--
       (1) PHA income mix.--Of the public housing dwelling units 
     of a public housing agency made available for occupancy by 
     eligible families, not less than 35 percent shall be occupied 
     by families whose incomes at the time of occupancy 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 ceilings 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. This 
     paragraph may not be construed to create any authority on the 
     part of any public housing agency to evict any family 
     residing in public housing solely because of the income of 
     the family or because of any noncompliance or overcompliance 
     with the requirement of this paragraph.
       (2) Prohibition of concentration of low-income families.--A 
     public housing agency may not, in complying with the 
     requirements under paragraph (1), concentrate 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 public housing agencies to ensure compliance 
     with the provisions of this paragraph.
       (3) Fungibility with choice-based assistance.--If, during a 
     fiscal year, a public housing agency provides choice-based 
     housing assistance under title III for a number of low-income 
     families, who are initially assisted by the agency in such 
     year and have incomes described in section 321(b) (relating 
     to income targeting), which exceeds the number of families 
     that is required for the agency to comply with the percentage 
     requirement under such section 321(b) for such fiscal year, 
     notwithstanding paragraph (1) of this subsection, the number 
     of public housing dwelling units that the agency must 
     otherwise make available in accordance with such paragraph to 
     comply with the percentage requirement under such paragraph 
     shall be reduced by such excess number of families for such 
     fiscal year.
       (d) Waiver of Eligibility Requirements for Occupancy by 
     Police Officers.--
       (1) Authority and waiver.--To the extent necessary to 
     provide occupancy in public housing dwelling units to police 
     officers and other law enforcement or security personnel (who 
     are not otherwise eligible for residence in public housing) 
     and to increase security for other public housing residents 
     in developments where crime has been a problem, a public 
     housing agency may, with respect to such units and subject to 
     paragraph (2)--
       (A) waive--
       (i) the provisions of subsection (a) of this section and 
     section 225(a); and
       (ii) the applicability of--
       (I) any preferences for occupancy established under section 
     223;
       (II) the minimum rental amount established pursuant to 
     section 225(c) and any maximum monthly rental amount 
     established pursuant to section 225(b);
       (III) any criteria relating to income mix within 
     developments established under subsection (b);
       (IV) the income mix requirements under subsection (c); and
       (V) any other occupancy limitations or requirements; and
       (B) establish special rent requirements and other terms and 
     conditions of occupancy.
       (2) Conditions of waiver.--A public housing agency may take 
     the actions authorized in paragraph (1) only if agency 
     determines that such actions will increase security in the 
     public housing developments involved and will not result in a 
     significant reduction of units available for residence by 
     low-income families.

     SEC. 223. PREFERENCES FOR OCCUPANCY.

       (a) Authority To Establish.--Each public housing agency may 
     establish a system for making dwelling units in public 
     housing available for occupancy that provides preference for 
     such occupancy to families having certain characteristics.
       (b) Content.--Each system of preferences established 
     pursuant to this section shall be based upon local housing 
     needs and priorities, as determined by the public housing 
     agency using generally accepted data sources, including any 
     information obtained pursuant to an opportunity for public 
     comment as provided under section 106(e) and under the 
     requirements applicable to the comprehensive housing 
     affordability strategy for the relevant jurisdiction.
       (c) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that, to the greatest extent practicable, public housing 
     agencies involved in the selection of tenants under the 
     provisions of this title should adopt preferences for 
     individuals who are victims of domestic violence.

     SEC. 224. ADMISSION PROCEDURES.

       (a) Admission Requirements.--A public housing agency shall 
     ensure that each family residing in a public housing 
     development owned or administered by the agency is admitted 
     in accordance with the procedures established under this 
     title by the agency and the income limits under section 222.
       (b) Notification of Application Decisions.--A public 
     housing agency shall establish procedures designed to provide 
     for notification to an applicant for admission to public 
     housing of the determination with respect to such 
     application, the basis for the determination, and, if the 
     applicant is determined to be eligible for admission, the 
     projected date of occupancy (to the extent such data can 
     reasonably be determined). If an agency denies an applicant 
     admission to public housing, the agency shall notify the 
     applicant that the applicant may request an informal hearing 
     on the denial within a reasonable time of such notification.
       (c) Site-Based Waiting Lists.--A public housing agency may 
     establish procedures for maintaining waiting lists for 
     admissions to public housing developments of the agency, 
     which may include (notwithstanding any other law, regulation, 
     handbook, or notice to the contrary) a system of site-based 
     waiting lists whereby applicants may apply directly at or 
     otherwise designate the development or developments in which 
     they seek to reside. All such procedures shall comply with 
     all provisions of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 
     the Fair Housing Act, and other applicable civil rights laws.
       (d) Confidentiality for Victims of Domestic Violence.--A 
     public housing agency shall be subject to the restrictions 
     regarding release of information relating to the identity and 
     new residence of any family in public housing that was a 
     victim of domestic violence that are applicable to shelters 
     pursuant to the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act. 
     The agency shall work with the United States Postal Service 
     to establish procedures consistent with the confidentiality 
     provisions in the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.
       (e) Transfers.--A public housing agency may apply, to each 
     public housing resident seeking to transfer from one 
     development to another development owned or operated by the 
     agency, the screening procedures applicable at such time to 
     new applicants for public housing.

     SEC. 225. FAMILY CHOICE OF RENTAL PAYMENT.

       (a) Rental Contribution by Resident.--A family residing in 
     a public housing dwelling shall pay as monthly rent for the 
     unit the amount determined under paragraph (1) or (2) of 
     subsection (b), subject to the requirement under subsection 
     (c). Each public housing agency shall provide for each family 
     residing in a public housing dwelling unit owned or 
     administered by the agency to elect annually whether the rent 
     paid by such family shall be determined under paragraph (1) 
     or (2) of subsection (b).
       (b) Allowable Rent Structures.--
       (1) Flat rents.--Each public housing agency shall 
     establish, for each dwelling unit in public housing owned or 
     administered by the agency, a flat rental amount for the 
     dwelling unit, which shall--
       (A) be based on the rental value of the unit, as determined 
     by the public housing agency; and
       (B) be designed in accordance with subsection (e) so that 
     the rent structures do not create a disincentive for 
     continued residency in public housing by families who are 
     attempting to become economically self-sufficient through 
     employment or who have attained a level of self-sufficiency 
     through their own efforts.

     The rental amount for a dwelling unit shall be considered to 
     comply with the requirements of this paragraph if such amount 
     does not exceed the actual monthly costs to the public 
     housing agency attributable to providing and operating the 
     dwelling unit. The preceding sentence may not be construed to 
     require establishment of rental amounts

[[Page H2216]]

     equal to or based on operating costs or to prevent public 
     housing agencies from developing flat rents required under 
     this paragraph in any other manner that may comply with this 
     paragraph.
       (2) Income-based rents.--The monthly rental amount 
     determined under this paragraph for a family shall be an 
     amount, determined by the public housing agency, that does 
     not exceed the greatest of the following amounts (rounded to 
     the nearest dollar):
       (A) 30 percent of the monthly adjusted income of the 
     family.
       (B) 10 percent of the monthly income of the family.
       (C) If the family is receiving payments for welfare 
     assistance from a public agency and a part of such payments, 
     adjusted in accordance with the actual housing costs of the 
     family, is specifically designated by such agency to meet the 
     housing costs of the family, the portion of such payments 
     that is so designated.

     Nothing in this paragraph may be construed to require a 
     public housing agency to charge a monthly rent in the maximum 
     amount permitted under this paragraph.
       (c) Minimum Rental Amount.--Notwithstanding the method for 
     rent determination elected by a family pursuant to subsection 
     (a), each public housing agency shall require that the 
     monthly rent for each dwelling unit in public housing owned 
     or administered by the agency shall not be less than a 
     minimum amount (which amount shall include any amount allowed 
     for utilities), which shall be an amount determined by the 
     agency that is not less than $25 nor more than $50.
       (d) Hardship Provisions.--
       (1) Minimum rental.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (c), a public 
     housing agency shall grant an exemption from application of 
     the minimum monthly rental under such subsection to any 
     family unable to pay such amount because of financial 
     hardship, which shall include situations in which (i) the 
     family has lost eligibility for or is awaiting an eligibility 
     determination for a Federal, State, or local assistance 
     program; (ii) the family would be evicted as a result of the 
     imposition of the minimum rent requirement under subsection 
     (c); (iii) the income of the family has decreased because of 
     changed circumstance, including loss of employment; and (iv) 
     a death in the family has occurred; and other situations as 
     may be determined by the agency.
       (B) Waiting period.--If a resident requests a hardship 
     exemption under this paragraph and the public housing agency 
     reasonably determines the hardship to be of a temporary 
     nature, an exemption shall not be granted during the 90-day 
     period beginning upon the making of a request for the 
     exemption. A resident may not be evicted during such 90-day 
     period for nonpayment of rent. In such a case, if the 
     resident thereafter demonstrates that the financial hardship 
     is of a long-term basis, the agency shall retroactively 
     exempt the resident from the applicability of the minimum 
     rent requirement for such 90-day period.
       (2) Switching rent determination methods.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (a), in the case of a family that has elected to 
     pay rent in the amount determined under subsection (b)(1), a 
     public housing agency shall provide for the family to pay 
     rent in the amount determined under subsection (b)(2) during 
     the period for which such election was made if the family is 
     unable to pay the amount determined under subsection (b)(1) 
     because of financial hardship, including--
       (A) situations in which the income of the family has 
     decreased because of changed circumstances, loss or reduction 
     of employment, death in the family, and reduction in or loss 
     of income or other assistance;
       (B) an increase, because of changed circumstances, in the 
     family's expenses for--
       (i) medical costs;
       (ii) child care;
       (iii) transportation;
       (iv) education; or
       (v) similar items; and
       (C) such other situations as may be determined by the 
     agency.
       (e) Encouragement of Self-Sufficiency.--The rental policy 
     developed by each public housing agency shall encourage and 
     reward employment and economic self-sufficiency.
       (f) Income Reviews.--Each public housing agency shall 
     review the income of each family occupying a dwelling unit in 
     public housing owned or administered by the agency not less 
     than annually, except that, in the case of families that are 
     paying rent in the amount determined under subsection (b)(1), 
     the agency shall review the income of such family not less 
     than once every 3 years.
       (g) Disallowance of Earned Income From Rent 
     Determinations.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the rent payable under this section by a family 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 rent 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) shall be phased in over a 
     subsequent 3-year period.
       (3) Transition.--Notwithstanding the provisions of 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), any resident 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 in effect before 
     the effective date of the repeal under section 601(b) of this 
     Act) shall be governed by such authority after such date.
       (h) Phase-In of Rent Contribution Increases After Effective 
     Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), for 
     any family residing in a dwelling unit in public housing upon 
     the effective date of this Act, if the monthly contribution 
     for rental of an assisted dwelling unit to be paid by the 
     family upon initial applicability of this title is greater 
     than the amount paid by the family under the provisions of 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937 immediately before such 
     applicability, any such resulting increase in rent 
     contribution shall be--
       (A) phased in equally over a period of not less than 3 
     years, if such increase is 30 percent or more of such 
     contribution before initial applicability; and
       (B) limited to not more than 10 percent per year if such 
     increase is more than 10 percent but less than 30 percent of 
     such contribution before initial applicability.
       (2) Exception.--The minimum rental amount under subsection 
     (c) shall apply to each family described in paragraph (1) of 
     this subsection, notwithstanding such paragraph.

     SEC. 226. LEASE REQUIREMENTS.

       In renting dwelling units in a public housing development, 
     each public housing agency shall utilize leases that--
       (1) do not contain unreasonable terms and conditions;
       (2) obligate the public housing agency to maintain the 
     development in compliance with the housing quality 
     requirements under section 232;
       (3) require the public housing agency 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 public 
     housing agency employees is threatened; and
       (C) the period of time provided under the applicable law of 
     the jurisdiction, in any other case;
       (4) contain the provisions required under sections 642 and 
     643 (relating to limitations on occupancy in federally 
     assisted housing); and
       (5) specify that, with respect to any notice of eviction or 
     termination, notwithstanding any State law, a public housing 
     resident shall be informed of the opportunity, prior to any 
     hearing or trial, to examine any relevant documents, records 
     or regulations directly related to the eviction or 
     termination.

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

       (a) Authority to Provide Designated Housing.--
       (1) In general.--Subject only to provisions of this section 
     and notwithstanding any other provision of law, a public 
     housing agency for which the information required under 
     subsection (d) is in effect may provide public housing 
     developments (or portions of developments) designated for 
     occupancy by (A) only elderly families, (B) only disabled 
     families, or (C) elderly and disabled families.
       (2) Priority for occupancy.--In determining priority for 
     admission to public housing developments (or portions of 
     developments) that are designated for occupancy as provided 
     in paragraph (1), the public housing agency may make units in 
     such developments (or portions) available on to the types of 
     families for whom the development is designated.
       (3) 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 development 
     (or portion of a development) designated under paragraph (1) 
     for occupancy by only elderly families, the agency may 
     provide that near-elderly families may occupy dwelling units 
     in the development (or portion).
       (b) Standards Regarding Evictions.--Except as provided in 
     subtitle C of title VI, any tenant who is lawfully residing 
     in a dwelling unit in a public housing development may not be 
     evicted or otherwise required to vacate such unit because of 
     the designation of the development (or portion of a 
     development) pursuant to this section or because of any 
     action taken by the Secretary or any public housing agency 
     pursuant to this section.
       (c) Relocation Assistance.--A public housing agency that 
     designates any existing development or building, or portion 
     thereof, for occupancy as provided under subsection (A)(1) 
     shall provide, to each person and family who agrees to be 
     relocated in connection with such designation--
       (1) notice of the designation and an explanation of 
     available relocation benefits, as soon as is practicable for 
     the agency and the person or family;
       (2) access to comparable housing (including appropriate 
     services and design features), which may include choice-based 
     rental housing assistance under title III, at a rental rate

[[Page H2217]]

     paid by the tenant that is comparable to that applicable to 
     the unit from which the person or family has vacated; and
       (3) payment of actual, reasonable moving expenses.
       (d) Required Inclusions in Local Housing Management Plan.--
     A public housing agency may designate a development (or 
     portion of a development) for occupancy under subsection 
     (a)(1) only if the agency, as part of the agency's local 
     housing management plan--
       (1) establishes that the designation of the development is 
     necessary--
       (A) to achieve the housing goals for the jurisdiction under 
     the comprehensive housing affordability strategy under 
     section 105 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 
     Housing Act; or
       (B) to meet the housing needs of the low-income population 
     of the jurisdiction; and
       (2) includes a description of--
       (A) the development (or portion of a development) to be 
     designated;
       (B) the types of tenants for which the development is to be 
     designated;
       (C) any supportive services to be provided to tenants of 
     the designated development (or portion);
       (D) how the design and related facilities (as such term is 
     defined in section 202(d)(8) of the Housing Act of 1959) of 
     the development accommodate the special environmental needs 
     of the intended occupants; and
       (E) any plans to secure additional resources or housing 
     assistance to provide assistance to families that may have 
     been housed if occupancy in the development were not 
     restricted pursuant to this section.

     For purposes of this subsection, the term ``supportive 
     services'' means services designed to meet the special needs 
     of residents. Notwithstanding section 107, the Secretary may 
     approve a local housing management plan without approving the 
     portion of the plan covering designation of a development 
     pursuant to this section.
       (e) Effectiveness.--
       (1) Initial 5-year effectiveness.--The information required 
     under subsection (d) shall be in effect for purposes of this 
     section during the 5-year period that begins upon 
     notification under section 107(a) of the public housing 
     agency that the information complies with the requirements 
     under section 106 and this section.
       (2) Renewal.--Upon the expiration of the 5-year period 
     under paragraph (1) or any 2-year period under this 
     paragraph, an agency may extend the effectiveness of the 
     designation and information for an additional 2-year period 
     (that begins upon such expiration) by submitting to the 
     Secretary any information needed to update the information. 
     The Secretary may not limit the number of times a public 
     housing agency extends the effectiveness of a designation and 
     information under this paragraph.
       (3) Treatment of existing plans.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this section, a public housing agency shall be 
     considered to have submitted the information required under 
     this section if the agency has submitted to the Secretary an 
     application and allocation plan under section 7 of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before the effective 
     date of the repeal under section 601(b) of this Act) that has 
     not been approved or disapproved before such effective 
     date.
       (4) Transition provision.--Any application and allocation 
     plan approved under section 7 of the United States Housing 
     Act of 1937 (as in effect before the effective date of the 
     repeal under section 601(b) of this Act) before such 
     effective date shall be considered to be the information 
     required to be submitted under this section and that is in 
     effect for purposes of this section for the 5-year period 
     beginning upon such approval.
       (f) Inapplicability of Uniform Relocation Assistance and 
     Real Property Acquisitions Policy Act of 1970.--No resident 
     of a public housing development shall be considered to be 
     displaced for purposes of the Uniform Relocation Assistance 
     and Real Property Acquisitions Policy Act of 1970 because of 
     the designation of any existing development or building, or 
     portion thereof, for occupancy as provided under subsection 
     (a) of this section.
       (g) Use of Amounts.--Any amounts appropriated pursuant to 
     section 10(b) of the Housing Opportunity Program Extension 
     Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-120) may also be used, to the 
     extent or in such amounts as are or have been provided in 
     advance in appropriation Acts, for choice-based rental 
     housing assistance under title III for public housing 
     agencies to implement this section.

                         Subtitle C--Management

     SEC. 231. MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES.

       (a) Sound Management.--A public housing agency that 
     receives grant amounts under this title shall establish and 
     comply with procedures and practices sufficient to ensure 
     that the public housing developments owned or administered by 
     the agency are operated in a sound manner.
       (b) Accounting System for Rental Collections and Costs.--
       (1) Establishment.--Each public housing agency that 
     receives grant amounts under this title shall establish and 
     maintain a system of accounting for rental collections and 
     costs (including administrative, utility, maintenance, 
     repair, and other operating costs) for each project and 
     operating cost center (as determined by the Secretary).
       (2) Access to records.--Each public housing agency shall 
     make available to the general public the information required 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) regarding collections and costs.
       (3) Exemption.--The Secretary may permit authorities owning 
     or operating fewer than 500 dwelling units to comply with the 
     requirements of this subsection by accounting on an agency-
     wide basis.
       (c) Management by Other Entities.--Except as otherwise 
     provided under this Act, a public housing agency may contract 
     with any other entity to perform any of the management 
     functions for public housing owned or operated by the public 
     housing agency.

     SEC. 232. HOUSING QUALITY REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Each public housing agency that receives 
     grant amounts under this Act shall maintain its public 
     housing in a condition that complies--
       (1) in the case of public housing located in a jurisdiction 
     which has in effect laws, regulations, standards, or codes 
     regarding habitability of residential dwellings, with such 
     applicable laws, regulations, standards, or codes; or
       (2) in the case of public housing located in a jurisdiction 
     which does not have in effect laws, regulations, standards, 
     or codes described in paragraph (1), with the housing quality 
     standards established under subsection (b).
       (b) Federal Housing Quality Standards.--The Secretary shall 
     establish housing quality standards under this subsection 
     that ensure that public housing dwelling units are safe, 
     clean, and healthy. Such standards shall include requirements 
     relating to habitability, including maintenance, health and 
     sanitation factors, condition, and construction of dwellings, 
     and shall, to the greatest extent practicable, be consistent 
     with the standards established under section 328(c). The 
     Secretary shall differentiate between major and minor 
     violations of such standards.
       (c) Determinations.--Each public housing agency providing 
     housing assistance shall identify, in the local housing 
     management plan of the agency, whether the agency is 
     utilizing the standard under paragraph (1) or (2) of 
     subsection (a).
       (d) Annual Inspections.--Each public housing agency that 
     owns or operates public housing shall make an annual 
     inspection of each public housing development to determine 
     whether units in the development are maintained in accordance 
     with the requirements under subsection (a). The agency shall 
     retain the results of such inspections and, upon the request 
     of the Secretary, the Inspector General for the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development, or any auditor conducting an 
     audit under section 541, shall make such results available.

     SEC. 233. EMPLOYMENT OF RESIDENTS.

       Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 
     (12 U.S.C. 1701u) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by striking ``public and Indian housing agencies'' and 
     inserting ``public housing agencies and recipients of grants 
     under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
     Determination Act of 1996''; and
       (ii) by striking ``development assistance'' and all that 
     follows through the end and inserting ``assistance provided 
     under title II of the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility 
     Act of 1997 and used for the housing production, operation, 
     or capital needs.''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``managed by the 
     public or Indian housing agency'' and inserting ``assisted by 
     the public housing agency or the recipient of a grant under 
     the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination 
     Act of 1996''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by striking ``public and Indian housing agencies'' and 
     inserting ``public housing agencies and recipients of grants 
     under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
     Determination Act of 1996''; and
       (ii) by striking ``development assistance'' and all that 
     follows through ``section 14 of that Act'' and inserting 
     ``assistance provided under title II of the Housing 
     Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 1997 and used for the 
     housing production, operation, or capital needs''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``operated by the 
     public or Indian housing agency'' and inserting ``assisted by 
     the public housing agency or the recipient of a grant under 
     the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination 
     Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 234. RESIDENT COUNCILS AND RESIDENT MANAGEMENT 
                   CORPORATIONS.

       (a) Resident Councils.--The residents of a public housing 
     development may establish a resident council for the 
     development for purposes of consideration of issues relating 
     to residents, representation of resident interests, and 
     coordination and consultation with a public housing agency. A 
     resident council shall be an organization or association 
     that--
       (1) is nonprofit in character;
       (2) is representative of the residents of the eligible 
     housing;
       (3) adopts written procedures providing for the election of 
     officers on a regular basis; and
       (4) has a democratically elected governing board, which is 
     elected by the residents of the eligible housing on a regular 
     basis.
       (b) Resident Management Corporations.--

[[Page H2218]]

       (1) Establishment.--The residents of a public housing 
     development may establish a resident management corporation 
     for the purpose of assuming the responsibility for the 
     management of the development under section 235 or purchasing 
     a development.
       (2) Requirements.--A resident management corporation shall 
     be a corporation that--
       (A) is nonprofit in character;
       (B) is organized under the laws of the State in which the 
     development is located;
       (C) has as its sole voting members the residents of the 
     development; and
       (D) is established by the resident council for the 
     development or, if there is not a resident council, by a 
     majority of the households of the development.

     SEC. 235. MANAGEMENT BY RESIDENT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION.

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

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

       (a) Authority.--The Secretary may transfer the 
     responsibility and authority for management of specified 
     housing (as such term is defined in subsection (h)) from a 
     public housing agency to an eligible management entity, in 
     accordance with the requirements of this section, if--
       (1) such housing is owned or operated by a public housing 
     agency that is designated as a troubled agency under section 
     533(a); and
       (2) the Secretary determines that--
       (A) such housing has deferred maintenance, physical 
     deterioration, or obsolescence of major systems and other 
     deficiencies in the physical plant of the project;
       (B) such housing is occupied predominantly by families with 
     children who are in a severe state of distress, characterized 
     by such factors as high rates of unemployment, teenage 
     pregnancy, single-parent households, long-term dependency on 
     public assistance and minimal educational achievement;
       (C) such housing is located in an area such that the 
     housing is subject to recurrent vandalism and criminal 
     activity (including drug-related criminal activity); and
       (D) the residents can demonstrate that the elements of 
     distress for such housing specified in subparagraphs (A) 
     through (C) can be remedied by an entity that has a 
     demonstrated capacity to manage; with reasonable expenses for 
     modernization.

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

     The term does not include a resident council.
       (2) Manager.--The term ``manager'' means any eligible 
     management entity that has entered into a contract under this 
     section with the Secretary for the management of specified 
     housing.
       (3) Nonprofit.--The term ``nonprofit'' means, with respect 
     to an organization, association, corporation, or other 
     entity, that no part of the net earnings of the entity inures 
     to the benefit of any member, founder, contributor, or 
     individual.
       (4) Private nonprofit organization.--The term ``private 
     nonprofit organization'' means any private organization 
     (including a State or locally chartered organization) that--
       (A) is incorporated under State or local law;
       (B) is nonprofit in character;
       (C) complies with standards of financial accountability 
     acceptable to the Secretary; and
       (D) has among its purposes significant activities related 
     to the provision of decent housing that is affordable to low-
     income families.
       (5) Public housing agency.--The term ``public housing 
     agency'' has the meaning given such term in section 103(a).

[[Page H2219]]

       (6) Public nonprofit organization.--The term ``public 
     nonprofit organization'' means any public entity that is 
     nonprofit in character.
       (7) Specified housing.--The term ``specified housing'' 
     means a public housing development or developments, or a 
     portion of a development or developments, for which the 
     transfer of management is requested under this section. The 
     term includes one or more contiguous buildings and an area of 
     contiguous row houses, but in the case of a single building, 
     the building shall be sufficiently separable from the 
     remainder of the development of which it is part to make 
     transfer of the management of the building feasible for 
     purposes of this section.

     SEC. 237. RESIDENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM.

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

     For purposes of this section, the term ``public housing 
     development'' includes one or more contiguous buildings or an 
     area of contiguous row houses the elected resident councils 
     of which approve the establishment of a resident management 
     corporation and otherwise meet the requirements of this 
     section.
       (b) Program Requirements.--
       (1) Resident council.--As a condition of entering into a 
     resident opportunity program, the elected resident council of 
     a public housing development shall approve the establishment 
     of a resident management corporation that complies with the 
     requirements of section 234(b)(2). When such approval is made 
     by the elected resident council of a building or row house 
     area, the resident opportunity program shall not interfere 
     with the rights of other families residing in the development 
     or harm the efficient operation of the development. The 
     resident management corporation and the resident council may 
     be the same organization, if the organization complies with 
     the requirements applicable to both the corporation and 
     council.
       (2) Public housing management specialist.--The resident 
     council of a public housing development, in cooperation with 
     the public housing agency, shall select a qualified public 
     housing management specialist to assist in determining the 
     feasibility of, and to help establish, a resident management 
     corporation and to provide training and other duties agreed 
     to in the daily operations of the development.
       (3) Management responsibilities.--A resident management 
     corporation that qualifies under this section, and that 
     supplies insurance and bonding or equivalent protection 
     sufficient to the Secretary and the public housing agency, 
     shall enter into a contract with the agency establishing the 
     respective management rights and responsibilities of the 
     corporation and the agency. The contract shall be treated as 
     a contracting out of services and shall be subject to the 
     requirements under section 235 for such contracts.
       (4) Annual audit.--The books and records of a resident 
     management corporation operating a public housing development 
     shall be audited annually by a certified public accountant. A 
     written report of each such audit shall be forwarded to the 
     public housing agency and the Secretary.
       (c) Comprehensive Improvement Assistance.--Public housing 
     developments managed by resident management corporations may 
     be provided with modernization assistance from grant amounts 
     under this title for purposes of renovating such 
     developments. If such renovation activities (including the 
     planning and architectural design of the rehabilitation) are 
     administered by a resident management corporation, the public 
     housing agency involved may not retain, for any 
     administrative or other reason, any portion of the assistance 
     provided pursuant to this subsection unless otherwise 
     provided by contract.
       (d) Waiver of Federal Requirements.--
       (1) Waiver of regulatory requirements.--Upon the request of 
     any resident management corporation and public housing 
     agency, and after notice and an opportunity to comment is 
     afforded to the affected residents, the Secretary may waive 
     (for both the resident management corporation and the public 
     housing agency) any requirement established by the Secretary 
     (and not specified in any statute) that the Secretary 
     determines to unnecessarily increase the costs or restrict 
     the income of a public housing development.
       (2) Waiver to permit employment.--Upon the request of any 
     resident management corporation, the Secretary may, subject 
     to applicable collective bargaining agreements, permit 
     residents of such development to volunteer a portion of their 
     labor.
       (3) Exceptions.--The Secretary may not waive under this 
     subsection any requirement with respect to income eligibility 
     for purposes of section 222, family rental payments under 
     section 225, tenant or applicant protections, employee 
     organizing rights, or rights of employees under collective 
     bargaining agreements.
       (e) Operating Assistance and Development Income.--
       (1) Calculation of operating subsidy.--The grant amounts 
     received under this title by a public housing agency used for 
     operating fund activities under section 203(a)(2) that are 
     allocated to a public housing development managed by a 
     resident management corporation shall not be less than per 
     unit monthly amount of such assistance used by the public 
     housing agency in the previous year, as determined on an 
     individual development basis.
       (2) Contract requirements.--Any contract for management of 
     a public housing development entered into by a public housing 
     agency and a resident management corporation shall specify 
     the amount of income expected to be derived from the 
     development itself (from sources such as rents and charges) 
     and the amount of income funds to be provided to the 
     development from the other sources of income of the agency 
     (such as assistance for operating activities under section 
     203(a)(2), interest income, administrative fees, and rents).
       (f) Resident Management Technical Assistance and 
     Training.--
       (1) Financial assistance.--To the extent budget authority 
     is available under this title, the Secretary shall provide 
     financial assistance to resident management corporations or 
     resident councils that obtain, by contract or otherwise, 
     technical assistance for the development of resident 
     management entities, including the formation of such 
     entities, the development of the management capability of 
     newly formed or existing entities, the identification of the 
     social support needs of residents of public housing 
     developments, and the securing of such support. In addition, 
     the Secretary may provide financial assistance to resident 
     management corporations or resident councils for activities 
     sponsored by resident organizations for economic uplift, such 
     as job training, economic development, security, and other 
     self-sufficiency activities beyond those related to the 
     management of public housing. The Secretary may require 
     resident councils or resident management corporations to 
     utilize public housing agencies or other qualified 
     organizations as contract administrators with respect to 
     financial assistance provided under this paragraph.
       (2) Limitation on assistance.--The financial assistance 
     provided under this subsection with respect to any public 
     housing development may not exceed $100,000.
       (3) Prohibition.--A resident management corporation or 
     resident council may not, before the award to the corporation 
     or council of a grant amount under this subsection, enter 
     into any contract or other agreement with any entity to 
     provide such entity with amounts from the grant for providing 
     technical assistance or carrying out other activities 
     eligible for assistance with amounts under this subsection. 
     Any such agreement entered into in violation of this 
     paragraph shall be void and unenforceable.
       (4) Funding.--Of any amounts made available under section 
     282(1) for use under the capital fund, the Secretary may use 
     to carry out this subsection $15,000,000 for fiscal year 
     1998.
       (5) Limitation regarding assistance under hope grant 
     program.--The Secretary may not provide financial assistance 
     under this subsection to any resident management corporation 
     or resident council with respect to which assistance for the 
     development or formation of such entity is provided under 
     title III of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in 
     effect before the effective date of the repeal under section 
     601(b) of this Act).
       (6) Technical assistance and clearinghouse.--The Secretary 
     may use up to 10 percent of the amount made available 
     pursuant to paragraph (4)--
       (A) to provide technical assistance, directly or by grant 
     or contract, and
       (B) to receive, collect, process, assemble, and disseminate 
     information,

     in connection with activities under this subsection.
       (g) Assessment and Report by Secretary.--Not later than 3 
     years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall--
       (1) conduct an evaluation and assessment of resident 
     management, and particularly of the effect of resident 
     management on living conditions in public housing; and
       (2) submit to the Congress a report setting forth the 
     findings of the Secretary as a result of the evaluation and 
     assessment and including any recommendations the Secretary 
     determines to be appropriate.
       (h) Applicability.--Any management contract between a 
     public housing agency and a resident management corporation 
     that is entered into after the date of the enactment of the 
     Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Amendments Act of 
     1988 shall be subject to this section and any regulations 
     issued to carry out this section.

                       Subtitle D--Homeownership

     SEC. 251. RESIDENT HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAMS.

       (A) In General.--A public housing agency may carry out a 
     homeownership program in accordance with this section and the 
     local housing management plan of the agency to make public 
     housing dwelling units, public housing developments, and 
     other housing projects available for purchase by low-income 
     families. An agency may transfer a unit only pursuant to a 
     homeownership program approved by the Secretary. 
     Notwithstanding section 107, the Secretary may approve a 
     local housing management plan

[[Page H2220]]

     without approving the portion of the plan regarding a 
     homeownership program pursuant to this section. In the case 
     of the portion of a plan regarding the homeownerships program 
     that is submitted separately pursuant to the preceding 
     sentence, the Secretary shall approve or disapprove such 
     portion not later than 60 days after the submission of such 
     portion.
       (b) Participating Units.--A program under this section may 
     cover any existing public housing dwelling units or projects, 
     and may include other dwelling units and housing owned, 
     operated, or assisted, or otherwise acquired for use under 
     such program, by the public housing agency.
       (c) Eligible Purchasers.--
       (1) Low-income requirement.--Only low-income families 
     assisted by a public housing agency, other low-income 
     families and, entities formed to facilitate such sales by 
     purchasing units for resale to low-income families shall be 
     eligible to purchase housing under a homeownership program 
     under this section.
       (2) Other requirements.--A public housing agency may 
     establish other requirements or limitations for families to 
     purchase housing under a homeownership program under this 
     section, including requirements or limitations regarding 
     employment or participation in employment counseling or 
     training activities, criminal activity, participation in 
     homeownership counseling programs, evidence of regular 
     income, and other requirements. In the case of purchase by an 
     entity for resale to low-income families, the entity shall 
     sell the units to low-income families within 5 years from the 
     date of its acquisition of the units. The entity shall use 
     any net proceeds from the resale and from managing the units, 
     as determined in accordance with guidelines of the Secretary, 
     for housing purposes, such as funding resident organizations 
     and reserves for capital replacement.
       (d) Financing and Assistance.--A homeownership program 
     under this section may provide financing for acquisition of 
     housing by families purchasing under the program or by the 
     public housing agency for sale under this program in any 
     manner considered appropriate by the agency (including sale 
     to a resident management corporation).
       (e) Downpayment Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--Each family purchasing housing under a 
     homeownership program under this section shall be required to 
     provide from its own resources a downpayment in connection 
     with any loan for acquisition of the housing, in an amount 
     determined by the public housing agency. Except as provided 
     in paragraph (2), the agency shall permit the family to use 
     grant amounts, gifts from relatives, contributions from 
     private sources, and similar amounts as downpayment amounts 
     in such purchase,
       (2) Direct family contribution.--In purchasing housing 
     pursuant to this section, each family shall contribute an 
     amount of the downpayment, from resources of the family other 
     than grants, gifts, contributions, or other similar amounts 
     referred to in paragraph (1), that is not less than 1 percent 
     of the purchase price.
       (f) Ownership Interests.--A homeownership program under 
     this section may provide for sale to the purchasing family of 
     any ownership interest that the public housing agency 
     considers appropriate under the program, including ownership 
     in fee simple, a condominium interest, an interest in a 
     limited dividend cooperative, a shared appreciation interest 
     with a public housing agency providing financing.
       (g) Resale.--
       (1) Authority and limitation.--A home-ownership program 
     under this section shall permit the resale of a dwelling unit 
     purchased under the program by an eligible family, but shall 
     provide such limitations on resale as the agency considers 
     appropriate (whether the family purchases directly from the 
     agency or from another entity) for the agency to recapture--
       (A) from any economic gain derived from any such resale 
     occurring during the 5-year period beginning upon purchase of 
     the dwelling unit by the eligible family, a portion of the 
     amount of any financial assistance provided under the program 
     by the agency to the eligible family; and
       (B) after the expiration of such 5-year period, only such 
     amounts as are equivalent to the assistance provided under 
     this section by the agency to the purchaser.
       (2) Considerations.--The limitations referred to in 
     paragraph (1) may provide for consideration of the aggregate 
     amount of assistance provided under the program to the 
     family, the contribution to equity provided by the purchasing 
     eligible family, the period of time elapsed between purchase 
     under the home-ownership program and resale, the reason for 
     resale, any improvements to the property made by the eligible 
     family, any appreciation in the value of the property, and 
     any other factors that the agency considers appropriate.
       (h) Sale of Certain Scattered-Site Housing.--A public 
     housing agency that the Secretary has determined to be a 
     high-performing agency may use the proceeds from the 
     disposition of scattered-site public housing under a 
     homeownership program under this section to purchase 
     replacement scattered-site dwelling units, to the extent such 
     use is provided for in the local housing management plan for 
     the agency approved under section 107. Any such replacement 
     dwelling units shall be considered public housing for 
     purposes of this Act.
       (i) Inapplicability of Disposition Requirements.--The 
     provisions of section 261 shall not apply to disposition of 
     public housing dwelling units under a home-ownership program 
     under this section, except that any dwelling units sold under 
     such a program shall be treated as public housing dwelling 
     units for purposes of subsections (e) and (f) of section 261.

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

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

       (a) Authority and Flexibility.--A public housing agency may 
     demolish, dispose of, or demolish and dispose of nonviable or 
     nonmarketable public housing developments of the agency in 
     accordance with this section.
       (b) Local Housing Management Plan Requirement.--A public 
     housing agency may take any action to demolish or dispose of 
     a public housing development (or a portion of a 
     development) only if such demolition or disposition 
     complies with the provisions of this section and is in 
     accordance with the local housing management plan for the 
     agency. Notwithstanding section 107, the Secretary may 
     approve a local housing management plan without approving 
     the portion of the plan covering demolition or disposition 
     pursuant to this section.
       (c) Purpose of Demolition or Disposition.--A public housing 
     agency may demolish or dispose of a public housing 
     development (or portion of a development) only if the agency 
     provides sufficient evidence to the Secretary that--
       (1) the development (or portion thereof) is severely 
     distressed or obsolete;
       (2) the development (or portion thereof) is in a location 
     making it unsuitable for housing purposes;
       (3) the development (or portion thereof) has design or 
     construction deficiencies that make cost-effective 
     rehabilitation infeasible;
       (2) assuming that reasonable rehabilitation and management 
     intervention for the development has been completed and paid 
     for, the anticipated revenue that would be derived from 
     charging market-based rents for units in the development (or 
     portion thereof) would not cover the anticipated operating 
     costs and replacement reserves of the development (or 
     portion) at full occupancy and the development (or portion) 
     would constitute a substantial burden on the resources of the 
     public housing agency;
       (5) retention of the development (or portion thereof) is 
     not in the best interests of the residents of the public 
     housing agency because--
       (A) developmental changes in the area surrounding the 
     development adversely affect the health or safety of the 
     residents or the feasible operation of the development by the 
     public housing agency;
       (B) demolition or disposition will allow the acquisition, 
     development, or rehabilitation of other properties which will 
     be more efficiently or effectively operated as low-income 
     housing; or
       (C) other factors exist that the agency determines are 
     consistent with the best interests of the residents and the 
     agency and not inconsistent with other provisions of this 
     Act;
       (6) in the case only of demolition or disposition of a 
     portion of a development, the demolition or disposition will 
     help to ensure the remaining useful life of the remainder of 
     the development; or
       (7) in the case only of property other than dwelling 
     units--
       (A) the property is excess to the needs of a development; 
     or
       (B) the demolition or disposition is incidental to, or does 
     not interfere with, continued operation of a development.

     The evidence required under this subsection shall include, as 
     a condition of demolishing or disposing of a public housing 
     development (or portion of a development) estimated to have a 
     value of $100,000 or more, a statement of the market value of 
     the development (or portion), which has been determined by a 
     party not having any interest in the housing or the public 
     housing agency and pursuant to not less than 2 professional, 
     independent appraisals of the development (or portion).
       (d) Consultation.--A public housing agency may demolish or 
     dispose of a public housing development (or portion of a 
     development) only if the agency notifies and confers 
     regarding the demolition or disposition with--
       (1) the residents of the development (or portion); and
       (2) appropriate local government officials.
       (e) Counseling.--A public housing agency may demolish or 
     dispose of a public housing development (or a portion of a 
     development) only if the agency provides any necessary 
     counseling for families displaced by such action to 
     facilitate relocation.
       (f) Use of Proceeds.--Any net proceeds from the disposition 
     of a public housing development (or portion of a development) 
     shall be used for--
       (1) housing assistance for low-income families that is 
     consistent with the low-income housing needs of the 
     community, through acquisition, development, or 
     rehabilitation of, or homeownership programs for, other low-
     income housing or the provision of choice-based assistance 
     under title III for such families;
       (2) supportive services relating job training or child care 
     for residents of a development or developments; or
       (3) leveraging amounts for securing commercial enterprises, 
     on-site in public housing developments of the public housing 
     agency,

[[Page H2221]]

     appropriate to serve the needs of the residents.
       (g) Relocation.--A public housing agency that demolishes or 
     disposes of a public housing development (or portion of a 
     development thereof) shall ensure that--
       (1) each family that is a resident of the development (or 
     portion) that is demolished or disposed of is relocated to 
     other safe, clean, healthy, and affordable housing, which is, 
     to the maximum extent practicable, housing of the family's 
     choice, including choice-based assistance under title III 
     (provided that with respect to choice-based assistance, the 
     preceding requirement shall be fulfilled only upon the 
     relocation of the family into such housing);
       (2) the public housing agency does not take any action to 
     dispose of any unit until any resident to be displaced is 
     relocated in accordance with paragraph (1); and
       (3) each resident family to be displaced is paid relocation 
     expenses, and the rent to be paid initially by the resident 
     following relocation does not exceed the amount permitted 
     under section 225(a).
       (h) Right of First Refusal for Resident Organizations and 
     Resident Management Corporations.--
       (1) In general.--A public housing agency may not dispose of 
     a public housing development (or portion of a development) 
     unless the agency has, before such disposition, offered to 
     sell the property, as provided in this subsection, to each 
     resident organization and resident management corporation 
     operating at the development for continued use as low-income 
     housing, and no such organization or corporation purchases 
     the property pursuant to such offer. A resident organization 
     may act, for purposes of this subsection, through an entity 
     formed to facilitate homeownership under subtitle D.
       (2) Timing.--Disposition of a development (or portion 
     thereof) under this section may not take place--
       (A) before the expiration of the period during which any 
     such organization or corporation may notify the agency of 
     interest in purchasing the property, which shall be the 30-
     day period beginning on the date that the agency first 
     provides notice of the proposed disposition of the property 
     to such resident organizations and resident management 
     corporations;
       (B) if an organization or corporation submits notice of 
     interest in accordance with subparagraph (A), before the 
     expiration of the period during which such organization or 
     corporation may obtain a commitment for financing to purchase 
     the property, which shall be the 60-day period beginning upon 
     the submission to the agency of the notice of interest; or
       (C) if, during the period under subparagraph (B), an 
     organization or corporation obtains such financing commitment 
     and makes a bona fide offer to the agency to purchase the 
     property for a price equal to or exceeding the applicable 
     offer price under paragraph (3).

     The agency shall sell the property pursuant to any purchase 
     offer described in subparagraph (C).
       (3) Terms of offer.--An offer by a public housing agency to 
     sell a property in accordance with this subsection shall 
     involve a purchase price that reflects the market value of 
     the property, the reason for the sale, the impact of the sale 
     on the surrounding community, and any other factors that the 
     agency considers appropriate.
       (i) Information for Local Housing Management Plan.--A 
     public housing agency may demolish or dispose of a public 
     housing development (or portion thereof) only if it includes 
     in the applicable local housing management plan information 
     sufficient to describe--
       (1) the housing to be demolished or disposed of;
       (2) the purpose of the demolition or disposition under 
     subsection (c) and why the demolition or disposition complies 
     with the requirements under subsection (c), and includes 
     evidence of the market value of the development (or portion) 
     required under subsection (c);
       (3) how the consultations required under subsection (d) 
     will be made;
       (4) how the net proceeds of the disposition will be used in 
     accordance with subsection (f);
       (5) how the agency will relocate residents, if necessary, 
     as required under subsection (g); and
       (6) that the agency has offered the property for 
     acquisition by resident organizations and resident management 
     corporations in accordance with subsection (h).
       (j) Site and Neighborhood Standards Exemption.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a public housing 
     agency may provide for development of public housing dwelling 
     units on the same site or in the same neighborhood as any 
     dwelling units demolished, pursuant to a plan under this 
     section, but only if such development provides for 
     significantly fewer dwelling units.
       (k) Treatment of Replacement Units.--
       (1) Provision of other housing assistance.--In connection 
     with any demolition or disposition of public housing under 
     this section, a public housing agency may provide for other 
     housing assistance for low-income families that is consistent 
     with the low-income housing needs of the community, 
     including--
       (A) the provision of choice-based assistance under title 
     III; and
       (B) the development, acquisition, or lease by the agency of 
     dwelling units, which dwelling units shall--
       (i) be eligible to receive assistance with grant amounts 
     provided under this title; and
       (ii) be made available for occupancy, operated, and managed 
     in the manner required for public housing, and subject to the 
     other requirements applicable to public housing dwelling 
     units.
       (2) Treatment of individuals.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, an individual between the ages of 18 and 21, 
     inclusive, shall, at the discretion of the individual, be 
     considered a family.
       (l) Use of New Dwelling Units.--A public housing agency 
     demolishing or disposing of a public housing development (or 
     portion thereof) under this section shall seek, where 
     practical, to ensure that, if housing units are provided on 
     any property that was previously used for the public 
     housing demolished or disposed of, not less than 25 
     percent of such dwelling units shall be dwelling units 
     reserved for occupancy during the remaining useful life of 
     the housing by low-income families.
       (m) Permissible Relocation Without Plan.--If a public 
     housing agency determines that because of an emergency 
     situation public housing dwelling units are severely 
     uninhabitable, the public housing agency may relocate 
     residents of such dwelling units before the submission of a 
     local housing management plan providing for demolition or 
     disposition of such units.
       (n) Consolidation of Occupancy Within or Among Buildings.--
     Nothing in this section may be construed to prevent a public 
     housing agency from consolidating occupancy within or among 
     buildings of a public housing development, or among 
     developments, or with other housing for the purpose of 
     improving living conditions of, or providing more efficient 
     services to, residents.
       (o) De Minimis Exception to Demolition Requirements.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, in any 
     5-year period a public housing agency may demolish not more 
     than the lesser of 5 dwelling units or 5 percent of the total 
     dwelling units owned and operated by the public housing 
     agency, without providing for such demolition in a local 
     housing management plan, but only if the space occupied by 
     the demolished unit is used for meeting the service or other 
     needs of public housing residents or the demolished unit was 
     beyond repair.

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

       (a) Purposes.--The purpose of this section is to provide 
     assistance to public housing agencies for the purposes of--
       (1) reducing the density and improving the living 
     environment for public housing residents of severely 
     distressed public housing developments through the demolition 
     of obsolete public housing developments (or portions 
     thereof);
       (2) revitalizing sites (including remaining public housing 
     dwelling units) on which such public housing developments are 
     located and contributing to the improvement of the 
     surrounding neighborhood; and
       (3) providing housing that will avoid or decrease the 
     concentration of very low-income families; and
       (4) providing choice-based assistance in accordance with 
     title III for the purpose of providing replacement housing 
     and assisting residents to be displaced by the demolition.
       (b) Grant Authority.--The Secretary may make grants 
     available to public housing agencies as provided in this 
     section.
       (c) Contribution Requirement.--The Secretary may not make 
     any grant under this section to any applicant unless the 
     applicant certifies to the Secretary that the applicant will 
     supplement the amount of assistance provided under this 
     section with an amount of funds from sources other than this 
     section equal to not less than 5 percent of the amount 
     provided under this section, including amounts from other 
     Federal sources, any State or local government sources, any 
     private contributions, and the value of any in-kind services 
     or administrative costs provided.
       (d) Eligible Activities.--Grants under this section may be 
     used for activities to carry out revitalization programs for 
     severely distressed public housing, including--
       (1) architectural and engineering work, including the 
     redesign, reconstruction, or redevelopment of a severely 
     distressed public housing development, including the site on 
     which the development is located;
       (2) the demolition, sale, or lease of the site, in whole or 
     in part;
       (3) covering the administrative costs of the applicant, 
     which may not exceed such portion of the assistance provided 
     under this section as the Secretary may prescribe;
       (4) payment of reasonable legal fees;
       (5) providing reasonable moving expenses for residents 
     displaced as a result of the revitalization of the 
     development;
       (6) economic development activities that promote the 
     economic self-sufficiency of residents under the 
     revitalization program;
       (7) necessary management improvements;
       (8) leveraging other resources, including additional 
     housing resources, retail supportive services, jobs, and 
     other economic development uses on or near the development 
     that will benefit future residents of the site;
       (9) replacement housing and housing assistance under title 
     III;
       (10) transitional security activities; and
       (11) necessary supportive services, except that not more 
     than 10 percent of the amount

[[Page H2222]]

     of any grant may be used for activities under this paragraph.
       (e) Application and Selection.--
       (1) Application.--An application for a grant under this 
     section shall contain such information and shall be submitted 
     at such time and in accordance with such procedures, as the 
     Secretary shall prescribe.
       (2) Selection criteria.--The Secretary shall establish 
     selection criteria for the award of grants under this 
     section, which shall include--
       (A) the relationship of the grant to the local housing 
     management plan for the public housing agency and how the 
     grant will result in a revitalized site that will enhance the 
     neighborhood in which the development is located;
       (B) the capability and record of the applicant public 
     housing agency, or any alternative management agency for the 
     agency, for managing large-scale redevelopment or 
     modernization projects, meeting construction timetables, and 
     obligating amounts in a timely manner;
       (C) the extent to which the public housing agency could 
     undertake such activities without a grant under this section;
       (D) the extent of involvement of residents, State and local 
     governments, private service providers, financing entities, 
     and developers, in the development of a revitalization 
     program for the development; and
       (E) the amount of funds and other resources to be leveraged 
     by the grant.

     The Secretary shall give preference in selection to any 
     public housing agency that has been awarded a planning grant 
     under section 24(c) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 
     (as in effect before the effective date of the repeal under 
     section 601(b) of this Act).
       (f) Cost Limits.--Subject to the provisions of this 
     section, the Secretary--
       (1) shall establish cost limits on eligible activities 
     under this section sufficient to provide for effective 
     revitalization programs; and
       (2) may establish other cost limits on eligible activities 
     under this section.
       (g) Demolition and Replacement.--Any severely distressed 
     public housing demolished or disposed of pursuant to a 
     revitalization plan and any public housing produced in lieu 
     of such severely distressed housing, shall be subject to the 
     provisions of section 261.
       (h) Administration by Other Entities.--The Secretary may 
     require a grantee under this section to make arrangements 
     satisfactory to the Secretary for use of an entity other than 
     the public housing agency to carry out activities assisted 
     under the revitalization plan, if the Secretary determines 
     that such action will help to effectuate the purpose of this 
     section.
       (i) Withdrawal of Funding.--If a grantee under this section 
     does not proceed expeditiously, in the determination of the 
     Secretary, the Secretary shall withdraw any grant amounts 
     under this section that have not been obligated by the public 
     housing agency. The Secretary shall redistribute any 
     withdrawn amounts to one or more public housing agencies 
     eligible for assistance under this section or to one or more 
     other entities capable of proceeding expeditiously in the 
     same locality in carrying out the revitalization plan of the 
     original grantee.
       (j) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       (1) Applicant.--The term ``applicant'' means--
       (A) any public housing agency that is not designated as 
     troubled pursuant to section 533(a);
       (B) any public housing agency or private housing management 
     agent selected, or receiver appointed pursuant, to section 
     545; and
       (C) any public housing agency that is designated as 
     troubled pursuant to section 533(a) that--
       (i) is so designated principally for reasons that will not 
     affect the capacity of the agency to carry out a 
     revitalization program;
       (ii) is making substantial progress toward eliminating the 
     deficiencies of the agency; or
       (iii) is otherwise determined by the Secretary to be 
     capable of carrying out a revitalization program.
       (2) Private nonprofit corporation.--the term ``private 
     nonprofit organization'' means any private nonprofit 
     organization (including a State or locally chartered 
     nonprofit organization) that--
       (A) is incorporated under State or local law;
       (B) has no part of its net earnings inuring to the benefit 
     of any member, founder, contributor, or individual;
       (C) complies with standards of financial accountability 
     acceptable to the Secretary; and
       (D) has among its purposes significant activities related 
     to the provision of decent housing that is affordable to very 
     low-income families.
       (3) Severely distressed public housing.--The term 
     ``severely distressed public housing'' means a public housing 
     development (or building in a development) that--
       (A) requires major redesign, reconstruction or 
     redevelopment, or partial or total demolition, to correct 
     serious deficiencies in the original design (including 
     inappropriately high population density), deferred 
     maintenance, physical deterioration or obsolescence of major 
     systems and other deficiencies in the physical plant of the 
     development;
       (B) is a significant contributing factor to the physical 
     decline of and disinvestment by public and private entities 
     in the surrounding neighborhood;
       (C)(i) is occupied predominantly by families who are very 
     low-income families with children, are unemployed, and 
     dependent on various forms of public assistance; and
       (ii) has high rates of vandalism and criminal activity 
     (including drug-related criminal activity) in comparison to 
     other housing in the area;
       (D) cannot be revitalized through assistance under other 
     programs, such as the public housing block grant program 
     under this title, or the programs under sections 9 and 14 of 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before 
     the effective date of the repeal under section 601(b) of this 
     Act), because of cost constraints and inadequacy of available 
     amounts; and
       (E) in the case of individual buildings, is, in the 
     Secretary's determination, sufficiently separable from the 
     remainder of the development of which the building is part to 
     make use of the building feasible for purposes of this 
     section.
       (4) Supportive services.--The term ``supportive services'' 
     includes all activities that will promote upward mobility, 
     self-sufficiency, and improved quality of life for the 
     residents of the public housing development involved, 
     including literacy training, job training, day care, and 
     economic development activities.
       (k) Annual Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the 
     Congress an annual report setting forth--
       (1) the number, type, and cost of public housing units 
     revitalized pursuant to this section;
       (2) the status of developments identified as severely 
     distressed public housing;
       (3) the amount and type of financial assistance provided 
     under and in conjunction with this section; and
       (4) the recommendations of the Secretary for statutory and 
     regulatory improvements to the program established by this 
     section.
       (l) Funding.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated for grants under this section $500,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000.
       (2) Technical assistance.--Of the amount appropriated 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) for any fiscal year, the Secretary 
     may use not more than 0.50 percent for technical assistance. 
     Such assistance may be provided directly or indirectly by 
     grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements, and shall 
     include training, and the cost of necessary travel for 
     participants in such training, by or to officials of the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development, of public 
     housing agencies, and of residents.
       (m) Sunset.--No assistance may be provided under this 
     section after September 30, 2000.
       (n) Treatment of Previous Selections.--A public housing 
     agency that has been selected to receive amounts under the 
     notice of funding availability for fiscal year 1996 amounts 
     for the HOPE VI program (provided under the heading ``public 
     housing demolition, site revitalization, and replacement 
     housing grants'' in title II of the Departments of Veterans 
     Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (42 U.S.C. 1437l note) 
     (enacted as section 101(e) of Omnibus Consolidated 
     Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
     134; 110 Stat. 1321-269)) may apply to the Secretary of 
     Housing and Urban Development for a waiver of the total 
     development cost rehabilitation requirement otherwise 
     applicable under such program, and the Secretary may waive 
     such requirement, but only (1) to the extent that a 
     designated site for use of such amounts does not have 
     dwelling units that are considered to be obsolete under 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations in 
     effect upon the date of the enactment of this Act, and (2) if 
     the Secretary determines that the public housing agency will 
     continue to comply with the purposes of the program 
     notwithstanding such waiver.

     SEC. 263. VOLUNTARY VOUCHER SYSTEM FOR PUBLIC HOUSING.

       (a) In General.--A public housing agency may convert any 
     public housing development (or portion thereof) owned and 
     operated by the agency to a system of choice-based rental 
     housing assistance under title III, in accordance with this 
     section.
       (b) Assessment and Plan Requirement.--In converting under 
     this section to a choice-based rental housing assistance 
     system, the public housing agency shall develop a conversion 
     assessment and plan under this subsection, in consultation 
     with the appropriate public officials and with significant 
     participation by the residents of the development (or portion 
     thereof), which assessment and plan shall--
       (1) be consistent with and part of the local housing 
     management plan for the agency;
       (2) describe the conversion and future use or disposition 
     of the public housing development, including an impact 
     analysis on the affected community;
       (3) include a cost analysis that demonstrates whether or 
     not the cost (both on a net present value basis and in terms 
     of new budget authority requirements) of providing choice-
     based rental housing assistance under title III for the same 
     families in substantially similar dwellings over the same 
     period of time is less expensive than continuing public 
     housing assistance in the public housing development proposed 
     for conversion for the remaining useful life of the 
     development;
       (4) identify the actions, if any, that the public housing 
     agency will take with regard

[[Page H2223]]

     to converting any public housing development or developments 
     (or portions thereof) of the agency to a system of choice-
     based rental housing assistance under title III;
       (5) require the public housing agency to--
       (A) notify the families residing in the public housing 
     development subject to the conversion, in accordance with any 
     guidelines issued by the Secretary governing such 
     notifications, that--
       (i) the development will be removed from the inventory of 
     the public housing agency; and
       (ii) the families displaced by such action will receive 
     choice-based housing assistance;
       (B) provide any necessary counseling for families displaced 
     by such action to facilitate relocation; and
       (C) provide any reasonable relocation expenses for families 
     displaced by such action; and
       (6) ensure that each family that is a resident of the 
     development is relocated to other safe, clean, and healthy 
     affordable housing, which is, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, housing of the family's choice, including 
     choice-based assistance under title III (provided that with 
     respect to choice-based assistance, the preceding requirement 
     shall be fulfilled only upon the relocation of such family 
     into such housing).
       (c) Streamlined Assessment and Plan.--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 
     subsection (b) or otherwise require a streamlined assessment 
     with respect to any public housing development or class of 
     public housing developments.
       (d) Implementation of Conversion Plan.--
       (1) In general.--A public housing agency may implement a 
     conversion plan only if the conversion assessment under this 
     section demonstrates that the conversion--
       (A) will be more expensive than continuing to operate the 
     public housing development (or portion thereof) as public 
     housing; and
       (B) will principally benefit the residents of the public 
     housing development (or portion thereof) to be converted, the 
     public housing agency, and the community.
       (2) Disapproval.--The Secretary shall disapprove a 
     conversion plan only if the plan is plainly inconsistent with 
     the conversion assessment under subsection (b) or there is 
     reliable information and data available to the Secretary that 
     contradicts that conversion assessment.
       (e) Other Requirements.--To the extent approved by the 
     Secretary, the funds used by the public housing agency to 
     provide choice-based rental housing assistance under title 
     III shall be added to the housing assistance payment contract 
     administered by the public housing agency or any entity 
     administering the contract on behalf of the public housing 
     agency.
       (f) Savings Provision.--This section does not affect any 
     contract or other agreement entered into under section 22 of 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as such section 
     existed before the effective date of the repeal under section 
     601(b) of this Act).

                Subtitle F--Mixed-Finance Public Housing

     SEC. 271. AUTHORITY.

       Nothwithstanding sections 203 and 262, the Secretary may, 
     upon such terms and conditions as the Secretary may 
     prescribe, authorize a public housing agency to provide for 
     the use of grant amounts allocated and provided from the 
     capital fund or from a grant under section 262, to produce 
     mixed-finance housing developments, or replace or revitalize 
     existing public housing dwelling units with mixed-finance 
     housing developments, but only if the agency submits to the 
     Secretary a plan for such housing that is approved pursuant 
     to section 273 by the Secretary.

     SEC. 272. MIXED-FINANCE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS.

       (A) In General.--For purposes of this subtitle, the term 
     ``mixed-finance housing'' means low-income housing or mixed-
     income housing (as described in section 221(c)(2)) for which 
     the financing for production or revitalization is 
     provided, in part, from entities other than the public 
     housing agency.
       (b) Production.--A mixed-finance housing development shall 
     be produced or revitalized, and owned--
       (1) by a public housing agency or by an entity affiliated 
     with a public housing agency;
       (2) 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, is a managing member, or otherwise participates in 
     the activities of the entity;
       (3) 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
       (4) in accordance with such other terms and conditions as 
     the Secretary may prescribe by regulation.

     This subsection may not be construed to require production or 
     revitalization, and ownership, by the same entity.

     SEC. 273. MIXED-FINANCE HOUSING PLAN.

       The Secretary may approve a plan for production or 
     revitalization of mixed-finance housing under this subtitle 
     only if the Secretary determines that--
       (1) the public housing agency has the ability, or has 
     provided for an entity under section 272(b) that has the 
     ability, to use the amounts provided for use under the plan 
     for such housing, effectively, either directly or through 
     contract management;
       (2) the plan provides permanent financing commitments from 
     a sufficient number of sources other than the public housing 
     agency, which may include banks and other conventional 
     lenders, States, units of general local government, State 
     housing finance agencies, secondary market entities, and 
     other financial institutions;
       (3) the plan provides for use of amounts provided under 
     section 271 by the public housing agency for financing the 
     mixed-income housing in the form of grants, loans, advances, 
     or other debt or equity investments, including collateral or 
     credit enhancement of bonds issued by the agency or any State 
     or local governmental agency for production or revitalization 
     of the development; and
       (4) the plan complies with any other criteria that the 
     Secretary may establish.

     SEC. 274. RENT LEVELS FOR HOUSING FINANCED WITH LOW-INCOME 
                   HOUSING TAX CREDIT.

       With respect to any dwelling unit in a mixed-finance 
     housing development that is a low-income dwelling unit for 
     which amounts from a block grant under this title are used 
     and 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 residents of the unit shall be 
     determined in accordance with this title, but shall not in 
     any case exceed the amounts allowable under such section 42.

     SEC. 275. CARRY-OVER OF ASSISTANCE FOR REPLACED HOUSING.

       In the case of a mixed-finance housing development that is 
     replacement housing for public housing demolished or disposed 
     of, or is the result of the revitalization of existing public 
     housing, the share of assistance received from the capital 
     fund and the operating fund by the public housing agency that 
     owned or operated the housing demolished, disposed of, or 
     revitalized shall not be reduced because of such demolition, 
     disposition, or revitalization after the commencement of such 
     demolition, disposition, or revitalization, unless--
       (1) upon the expiration of the 18-month period beginning 
     upon the approval of the plan under section 273 for the 
     mixed-finance housing development, the agency does not have 
     binding commitments for production or revitalization, or a 
     construction contract, for such development;
       (2) upon the expiration of the 4-year period beginning upon 
     the approval of the plan, the mixed-finance housing 
     development is not substantially ready for occupancy and is 
     placed under the block grant contract for the agency under 
     section 201; or
       (3) the number of dwelling units in the mixed-finance 
     housing development that are made available for occupancy 
     only by low-income families is substantially less than the 
     number of such dwelling units in the public housing 
     demolished, disposed of, or revitalized.

     The Secretary may extend the period under paragraph (1) or 
     (2) for a public housing agency if the Secretary determines 
     that circumstances beyond the control of the agency caused 
     the agency to fail to meet the deadline under such paragraph.

                     Subtitle G--General Provisions

     SEC. 281. PAYMENT OF NON-FEDERAL SHARE.

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

     SEC. 282. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR BLOCK GRANTS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated for grants under 
     this title, the following amounts:
       (1) Capital fund. For the allocations from the capital fund 
     for grants, $2,500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998, 
     1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002; and
       (2) Operating fund.--For the allocations from the operating 
     fund for grants, $2,900,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.

     SEC. 283. FUNDING FOR OPERATION SAFE HOME.

       Of any amounts made available for fiscal years 1998 and 
     1999 for carrying out the Community Partnerships Against 
     Crime Act of 1997 (as so designated pursuant to section 
     624(a) of this Act), not more than $20,000,000 shall be 
     available in each such fiscal year, for use under the 
     Operation Safe Home program administered by the Office of the 
     Inspector General of the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development, for law enforcement efforts to combat violent 
     crime on or near the premises of public and federally 
     assisted housing.

     SEC. 284. FUNDING FOR RELOCATION OF VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC 
                   VIOLENCE.

       Of any amounts made available for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 
     2000, 2001, and 2002 for choice-based housing assistance 
     under title III of this Act, not more than $700,000 shall be 
     available in each such fiscal year for relocating residents 
     of public housing (including providing assistance for costs 
     of relocation and housing assistance under title III of this 
     Act) who are residing in public housing, who have been 
     subject to domestic violence, and

[[Page H2224]]

     for whom provision of assistance is likely to reduce or 
     eliminate the threat of subsequent violence to the members of 
     the family. The Secretary shall establish procedures for 
     eligibility and administration of assistance under this 
     section.


           amendment offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts:
       Page 96, strike line 1 and all that follows through page 
     97, line 22, and insert the following:
       (c) Income Mix.--
       (1) PHA-wide requirement.--Of the public housing units of a 
     public housing agency made available for occupancy by 
     eligible families in any fiscal year of the agency--
       (A) not less than 40 percent shall be occupied by families 
     whose incomes do not exceed 30 percent of the median income 
     for the area; and
       (B) not less than 90 percent shall be occupied by families 
     whose incomes do not exceed 60 percent of the median income 
     for the area; except that, for any fiscal year, the Secretary 
     may reduce to 80 percent the percentage under this 
     subparagraph for a public housing agency if the agency 
     demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that such 
     reduction would be used for, and would result in, the 
     enhancement of the long-term viability of the housing 
     developments of the agency.
       (2) Prohibition of concentration of low-income families.--A 
     public housing agency may not, in complying with the 
     requirements under paragraph (1), concentrate 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 public housing agencies to ensure compliance 
     with the provisions of this paragraph.
       (3) Area median income.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term ``area median income'' means the median income of an 
     area, as determined by the Secretary with adjustments of 
     smaller and larger families, except that the Secretary may 
     establish income ceilings higher or lower than the 
     percentages specified in this subsection if the Secretary 
     finds determines that such variations are necessary because 
     of unusually high or low family incomes.

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I 
ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I will yield if I can be 
allowed to extend my 5 minutes.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I will make the unanimous 
consent request for him.
  Would it be acceptable to the gentleman if we could establish some 
reasonable time limitations, 20 minutes, 10 minutes on each side, in 
order to debate this issue?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I 
think, as the gentleman knows, this amendment required a great deal of 
time in the full committee and, in fact, was very extensively debated 
at that time.
  I would consider perhaps a full hour of debate, distributed equally, 
30 minutes on each side. If we find there is less requirement for time, 
I would certainly enter into an idea of reducing time at some point 
throughout the debate.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue 
to yield, how does the gentleman react to, say, 20 minutes on each 
side, so it would be a total of 40 minutes?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time once again, Mr. 
Chairman, as I say, I think an hour would be an appropriate period of 
time.
  We understand the gentleman's reaction to this amendment, and I 
understand why he would like to limit it, but I do think this is one of 
the most important issues that is going to be faced in this 
legislation. And while I think there are other amendments that might be 
appropriate to reach some time limit agreements on, I think this goes 
to the heart of what public housing policy will be.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue 
to yield, I would say to the gentleman that I am prepared to withdraw 
the request. I know the gentleman wants to be heard. I respect that, I 
want to encourage that, and so if he needs the time, I will withdraw 
the request.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I 
appreciate the gentleman doing so.
  This amendment, I think, really gets to the heart of what our housing 
policy is going to be in this country. Right now we have a housing 
policy which indicates, and I would like to go up to the well, and can 
I get that chart brought up here, this chart indicates, I think very 
graphically, what will happen to public housing if H.R. 2 proceeds 
through the amendment process without change.
  Right now 75 percent of all the housing units in this country, both 
project-based as well as in public housing combined go to people with 
incomes below 30 percent of median. These are the poorest people in our 
country. They are the fastest growing population in America. If we look 
at any of the population tables, we will find out among who and where 
our population is really, really expanding today. It is among the 
poorest of the poor.
  Under the proposals that have been made by the Republican side, H.R. 
2, the number of lower income people that would no longer be able to 
occupy public housing over the period of the next 10 years would drop 
from its current 75 percent of individuals that are below 30 percent of 
median income down to about 20 percent.
  So what happens, Mr. Chairman, is a number of the very poor people in 
this country that would be able to occupy public housing would drop so 
dramatically that it would drop to just 20 percent of the units that 
would be occupied across the country would be at 30 percent of median 
income. Eighty percent of the units would go to people that are at 80 
percent of median income. What that means is we will take people that 
have incomes of $40,000 a year or more and we will put them into public 
housing, and we will go to the very poor people and we will kick them 
out. That is what the heart of this debate is all about.
  Nobody on the Democratic side, and I guarantee my colleagues that we 
will hear over and over and over again, for the next half-hour or hour 
as this debate goes on, that we want to keep the status quo. Nothing 
could be farther from the truth. No one is suggesting that we simply 
warehouse the poorest of the poor in these housing units. Under the 
Democratic proposals, we will reduce the number of very poor people to 
about 50-50 over a 10-year period. What we will not do is simply go in 
to the very poor and the very vulnerable; that in our rush to judgment 
about why public housing has failed, what we are going to do is just 
automatically throw out vast numbers of very poor people.
  Now, we have cut the housing budget in America from $28 billion to 
$20 billion. We cut the homeless budget in this country by about 26 
percent at the same time. So what we are doing, effectively, is we will 
be able to stand up at the end of passing this bill, which I am sure 
ultimately this bill might very well pass out of this Chamber, but 
effectively what we will have done is say we are going to revamp policy 
by taking in a lot more wealthier people, not wealthy but wealthier 
than the poor that exist there today, and by virtue of doing that we 
will save public housing. But what we will never debate is what happens 
to the very poor and the very vulnerable who will end up getting thrown 
out onto the streets as a result of these proposals.
  We should not make it a policy of this country to simply say that we 
can look better as legislators.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts was allowed to 
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, what this goes to is 
whether or not we simply enact laws to make us look good before the 
people of our country, by virtue of the fact that we now have sustained 
public housing but we do nothing about the fact that we still have poor 
people in America.
  These are going to be very, very poor people that are going to have 
no shelter, that are not going to have homeless programs, that are 
essentially going to be thrown out on the street in order for us to 
look good.

[[Page H2225]]

  I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we should have a better mix of working 
families in public housing. The Democratic alternative will achieve a 
better mix. We are not suggesting that poorly run housing authorities 
should not be taken over; that well-run housing authorities that have 
poorly run housing projects should not be taken away. What we are 
suggesting is that we ought not to walk away from our basic commitment 
to the very poor and the very vulnerable in the mix.
  That is essentially what H.R. 2 will do, and I ask my colleagues in 
the House to recognize our responsibilities and to protect the very, 
very poor.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is really a very significant amendment. As has 
been indicated by my colleague, the change in focus in terms of who is 
going to be in public housing is really the heart of this bill, and it 
is recognized that over the last decades that the income mix in public 
housing, for a variety of reasons, because of the preferences that we 
provided for entry and admission into public housing, has in fact 
result in lower and lower income individuals qualifying for public 
housing as a preference ahead of other families.
  Clearly, only about one quarter of the families that really qualify 
for public housing actually have that available because the limited 
number, amount of production, and the inability to afford on a local 
and State and Federal basis additional public housing. Clearly there is 
a need to change that mix so that we can have a population that is more 
stable and is better integrated economically, and this bill does it in 
such a radical way that I think it really causes some significant 
problem.
  As an example, the way H.R. 2 is set up right now, nearly 12.8 
million Americans, including 5 million children and 2 million elderly 
and disabled which have acute housing problems, would be excluded by 
virtue of the types of targeting or preferences in this bill.
  What the gentleman from Massachusetts is proposing is that we not 
maintain the income levels as they are today but that he would 
actually, in his graph that was presented here on the House floor, 
double the number; in other words, that 40 percent of the population, 
or 4 out of 10 of those in public housing would have incomes below 30 
percent of median income. Furthermore, he would provide that 90 percent 
would have incomes of less than 60 percent of median income.
  Mr. Chairman, in committee we evaluated what that median income was 
and we found in any number of urban communities that median income in 
those communities, 90 percent of median was in excess of $40,000 a 
year. So, actually, if we change the people or the individual families 
that we are serving and then suggest we can be successful only if 
families have such high incomes, that really is redefining the problem 
of what we are trying to deal with in the context of public and 
assisted housing.
  Unfortunately, most individuals that do not have income, it is not an 
option that they have low income; it is a result of the fact that they 
are economic casualties in terms of our society unable to earn jobs, 
they are disabled, they have other problems that inhibit them from 
earning higher incomes.
  While we want to move and change the mix of individuals in public and 
assisted housing, we do not want to, and we should not as a matter of 
policy, set in place income guidelines that completely exclude those 
that are among the very neediest in our society from that public 
housing today and tomorrow.
  We know that this could or should be accomplished over a period of 
time when it is phased in, but nevertheless, the end result of the 
policy path that this bill places before us is one of excluding time 
and time again those families that have lower incomes that have the 
greatest need in the name of social engineering in terms of trying to 
build higher income individual families in those units; in other words, 
rewarding work, trying to provide some law enforcement in others, in 
many others to live in public housing to have a better mix.
  The fact is that while those goals are good goals and goals we share, 
we do not think it needs to be done to the extent that is being 
portrayed in this bill. In fact, this method and this means of 
accomplishing it, I think it will very quickly change the status of 
public housing and our entire Federal response to public housing would 
come into question, because the question would be how is it that we are 
excluding so many low-income persons and at the same time maintaining 
substantial types of subsidies for those that have higher incomes that 
are in such public housing. I think that would lead to the demise and 
the questioning of looking for different means in terms of providing 
shelter for individuals. We no doubt would end up with more individuals 
that would be homeless, because that has been one of the priorities.
  So I urge the adoption of the Kennedy amendment. I think it makes the 
necessary reforms without doing violence to the people that are 
intended to be served, the poorest of the poor in this Nation.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise in support of this amendment, Mr. Chairman. I think this is 
the construction of what this legislation is all about. Are we going to 
change radically the face of those who live in public housing or are we 
going to maintain public housing for those who cannot afford to live 
anyplace else?
  It does not make good sense to me that we try to artificially design 
a mix for who should live in public housing. Let me tell my colleagues 
about public housing and what it is and why, perhaps, even that income 
level that we are trying to attract will not be interested in this 
public housing. Most of the people who live there really cannot afford 
to live anyplace else, because, if they could, they would.
  We have not invested very much in our public housing. We have allowed 
our public housing to become run down. We have not supported HUD and 
its ability to keep this public housing up to date. And so we do have 
the poorest of the poor who are living in run-down housing.
  The fact of the matter is in far too many places the Government of 
the United States of America is a slum lord.

                              {time}  1900

  We are allowing people to live in housing that is not oftentimes safe 
or sanitary. What is wrong with public housing? Certainly we need to 
support public housing and have a place for people who cannot afford to 
live anyplace else. But we have not placed in those public housing 
environments the kind of support systems that would keep people in safe 
environments.
  For example, in many of these public housing units in our cities, we 
kind of pile poor people on top of each other without services. Many of 
the cities act as if the public housing is not a part of the city. And 
so what happens? The local police department is not inside the public 
housing, do not want to go there, do not want to take care of the 
people there; and they have oftentimes their own private police forces 
without the support of the local police to do the job of protecting the 
people there.
  In addition to that, we pile poor people on top of each other. Yes, 
many of the mothers are welfare mothers. But do we have child care? Do 
we have a situation where mothers would have someplace to leave these 
children while they look for work, while they are in job training? No, 
we do not. One would think that in every public housing situation in 
America we would have child care because these are the people we say we 
want to go to work, these mothers who oftentimes are not trained, who 
would go into a job training program if they had someplace to leave 
their children. They do not have transportation. So it is not easy to 
get out, to go look for child care, to go look for jobs, to go look for 
job training.
  One would think that the cities and the private industry councils and 
JEPTA, job employment partnership training agencies, would bring the 
services where the people are. Some of these housing projects are 
bigger than little towns in America. But do they have the services? 
There are no employment offices oftentimes anywhere near the public 
housing project. Oh, but we want the people to go to work. Beside the 
fact that there are no employment agencies, we do not have the job 
training, the private industry councils or the JEPTA programs inside; 
we do not have the child care; we do not

[[Page H2226]]

have police departments. Many of them now are left basically to fend 
for themselves without any of the services of the county government or 
the city government.
  One would think that the county and the city agencies would find ways 
by which to say, we will not place all of the services outside of the 
public housing projects; we will place them inside the housing projects 
so that people could easily access the services in order to mainstream 
them, to change their life-styles and their way of life.
  We can come here and we can talk about ways of getting rid of them. 
Get rid of them if they do not volunteer. Get rid of them instead of 
having a grievance procedure.
  We do not talk about how we can increase the quality of life for 
people who live in these public housing projects. Do we have youth 
centers in public housing projects for young people to be involved in 
sports activities? I have been in many throughout America who do not 
have anything for the young people of those communities. I support this 
amendment because we are not going to get a mix, because who wants to 
live there, given the lack of resources.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, as we proceed with the majority's rope-a-dope strategy, 
I hope we can focus on the serious importance of this issue. Obviously 
public housing requires great change. The question is, in what 
direction? It is also important to inquire as to how it got to be a 
problem.
  Public housing came to be a problem in substantial part because of 
inadequate resources. No one, certainly not the poor, thought it was a 
good idea to take the poorest of the poor and put them in very large 
buildings with no services and inadequate construction, in many cases 
not near any other facilities. Society decided to provide housing but, 
having decided that, decided a little later it ought to do it as 
cheaply as possible. So we created public housing which was destined to 
deteriorate.
  But we should also remember that, as bad as the public housing is, no 
one lives there by force. As bad as public housing is, people live 
there voluntarily because it is the best they can get. As we denigrate 
and criticize and belittle public housing, remember that, when we do 
people the service of freeing them from this housing they live in 
voluntarily, we send them someplace worse. Unless we think they are 
totally insane, they live here voluntarily.
  It is relevant to note that because the housing budget that will come 
forward, in addition to what it does about public housing, will 
deteriorate our alternative housing resources. So we will be critical 
of public housing, we will be calling for a diminution of public 
housing units, but at the same time we will be reducing any 
alternatives.
  Indeed, I read in the New York Times Sunday that the chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means thought that one good way to raise taxes to 
offset some of the tax increases in the budget deal would be to kill 
the low income housing tax credit, so that it will produce even less 
housing. That is the context of the amendment of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  What the majority apparently says is this: We are not prepared to 
spend even as much on housing as we have. We know spending what we have 
spent has not been enough. How do we justify to ourselves spending 
considerably less? The answer is we will try to do much less.
  One way they are going to try to do much less is by adopting the 
Lester Maddox theory of social service. Lester Maddox once said that he 
could not be expected to bring about prison reform until he was given a 
better class of prisoners to work with. Our Republican friends believe 
that there is not much they can do with poverty stricken people unless 
they get people who are not poor.
  With the people who are not suffering from poverty, they are quite 
confident of their success. I am also confident. I am also confident 
that we will do better with people who have not been in the 
circumstances of poverty. Some people are in poverty because of 
circumstances; some of them, because they have got defects. There are 
people who do not work hard, who have disorganized personalities. I do 
not think the penalty for that ought to be homelessness. It certainly 
should not be the penalty for their children.
  Because when we restrict the ability of the poorest of the poor to 
get into public housing, and, remember, we are cutting back in 
virtually every other housing program in this, and we are about to 
adopt a budget deal, I probably will not vote for it in the way it now 
looks, but we are going to adopt a budget deal that is going to 
restrict our ability to do housing in the future. So we are going to 
improve public housing not essentially by structural improvements, not 
by more resources for the poor. We are going to serve a better class of 
poor people, and by serving a better class of poor people, we will have 
better results.
  If the end of this process was to judge how well housing authorities 
did, that would be rational. If the end is to be humane and 
compassionate to the poorest of the poor, it is not. This country is 
too well off to victimize that small number of people who will be 
victimized by this bill.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman's comments.
  I was going to point out that, if we look at 50 to 80 percent of 
median income, only 5 percent of those renters with that type of income 
have a housing problem; 95 percent do not. So obviously serving that 5 
percent, they are meeting their needs but as to the others they are 
not.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the 
gentleman, I want to help them, but creating the war of the poor 
against the very poor is public policy at its worst. To make the very 
poor the enemy of the poor is a very grave mistake. What we do here is 
underfund the housing authorities. We are going to be rescinding some 
money.
  Well, we have found that the housing department had saved more money 
than people had thought and had created some reserves. So we plan to 
rescind that and then we will claim that we cannot afford to help 
people. By the way, we should have added, it is not simply resources. I 
have heard people on the other side talk about how bad housing is.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts was allowed to 
proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, we ought to remember that 
for the 12 years before 1993, the Republicans controlled HUD, and for 8 
of those years, under President Reagan, the most corrupt and 
inefficient Cabinet secretary in recent memory, Secretary Pierce, was 
in charge of HUD. Yes, there are serious problems there, but they are 
not the fault of the poor. They are not the fault of the people who 
have tried to help the poor. And the solution is not to say: You poor 
people are too much trouble, and we are going to deal with a better 
class of low-income people.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kennedy amendment to make 
targeting provisions in this bill more humane. We know that we face an 
affordable housing crisis in this Nation. There are 5.3 million 
Americans living under worst-case housing scenario needs. That is, they 
are forced to pay more than 50 percent of their income in rent or live 
under deplorable conditions. H.R. 2 will exacerbate this crisis by 
making public housing available to higher income residents who can pay 
higher rents at the expense of thousands of low-income families.
  Without a firm commitment to the principle that housing is a right 
and not a privilege, we will never attain our stated objective of 
adequately housing our citizens, as demonstrated by our history. In the 
late 1960's, a White House conference on housing and urban issues 
called for 26 million new housing starts over the next 10 years in 
order to meet the housing needs of our Nation. That goal translated 
into 2.6 million housing starts each year, with 600,000 of those starts 
to be federally subsidized each year. The Nation has

[[Page H2227]]

never even approximated that goal, and currently the figure is slightly 
more than 1.5 million new housing starts annually. As a result our 
affordable housing crisis has exploded where millions of Americans live 
paying entirely too much for housing or they live in unsanitary or 
unsafe conditions. That, Mr. Chairman, is a national disgrace.
  When we talk about our priorities of enabling mixed income 
communities, which I believe is a laudable goal under ideal 
circumstances, we must be sure not to pull the housing safety net out 
from underneath the poorest and the most vulnerable Americans. Over the 
course of this debate, we will speak at length about the dangerous 
targeting provisions in this bill which set aside only 35 percent of 
public housing units for those earning below 30 percent of area median 
income, leaving the remainder of units to house people who earn up to 
80 percent of area median income. In Chicago that means 65 percent of 
all public housing units could be set aside for people earning $44,650. 
Should we be displacing full-time minimum wage workers to make room for 
professionals who can better afford to find housing in the private 
market? Even at this point, this is obviously a false debate.
  Let me be clear. When we target low-income tenants as those with 
incomes under 30 percent of median income in a large metropolitan area 
like Chicago, we are talking about those who earn $16,312. This is 
$5,000 more than a full-time minimum wage worker earns in a year and 
nearly $10,000 more than a welfare recipient. People who will 
necessarily be displaced by the proposed income mix equation will 
include vast numbers of the working poor. As a result, low-wage workers 
and Americans who are ostensibly encouraged to successfully make the 
transition from welfare to work will either be forced into homelessness 
or to forgo basic human necessities like health care, groceries, and 
clothing in order to find alternative shelter.
  We must be vigilant, Mr. Chairman, in our efforts to ensure that, 
just at the time we are requiring the most from the most vulnerable 
among us, we do not remove the stability and the security of adequate 
housing, an essential resource as people attempt to move from welfare 
to work. When we considered this legislation in the last Congress, 
welfare reform had not yet been enacted. Seventy percent of the 
residents of the Chicago Housing Authority receive public assistance, 
and half of the residents are children. If there are not enough jobs to 
meet the welfare-to-work requirements, the potentially devastating 
implications of this bill are magnified.
  Mr. Chairman, without this amendment to the targeting provision of 
H.R. 2, we are literally pulling the rug out from the poor and the 
working class Americans. Let us not make such a tragic mistake in the 
name of reform. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from New York, chairman of 
the subcommittee, to engage me in a brief colloquy.
  Is it the gentleman's expectation that working class Americans would 
be willing to move under the targeting provisions of this bill into 
Cabrini Green or into Robert Taylor Homes in the city of Chicago?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, it is the intent and the desire 
of myself and, I think, other Members in support of the bill that 
residents who are working and who are earning more are not forced to 
leave Cabrini Green but can stay there and continue to be role models 
in that area.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for the clarification.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to what the gentleman 
said. He made a very good statement. I think the point here is that 
under the preferences set up in this bill that there will be no new 
applicants under 35 percent of income. They could apply but the fact is 
the local housing authority will decide whether an upper income person, 
admittedly 80 percent of median income, and my colleague said it was in 
excess of $40,000 in Chicago. I do not know if it is that high in St. 
Paul, MN, but I think it is close to it. And the fact is that others 
with lower income, the housing authority could just deny them. So it is 
possible that over a period of attrition, as people move out or move up 
in income, that public housing would have higher and higher income 
persons in it.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me spend a minute or two kind of putting this in 
perspective for my colleagues.
  First of all, they got this issue of pitting the very poor against 
the working poor. If my colleagues were in the process of expanding the 
number of public housing units or low-income housing units available 
throughout the country, I do not think anybody could argue with a 
policy that would say it would be beneficial to have an economic mix in 
the new housing units. But we are not expanding public housing, we are 
not expanding low-income housing under this bill, we are not giving a 
dime of new public housing or low-income housing under this bill. They 
have a fixed number of units that we are dealing with.
  And so the question then becomes, ``Do you give that fixed number of 
units to the poorest of the poor, or do you give some of those units to 
the poorest of the poor and some to the working poor?'' But however we 
cut this up, they are pitting the very poor against the working poor, 
and so they have got an argument being made here that they can never 
win. We cannot win this argument.
  Sure the working poor need subsidized housing, but the very poor need 
subsidized housing also, and if they do not get subsidized housing, 
they do not have any alternatives but to be put out on the street.
  So the question then becomes are we going to serve less of the very 
poor and more of the working poor, or are we going to serve more of the 
very poor to keep them from being on the street?
  Now that is kind of like saying to me, look, I got a class of 
students who cannot read. Sure, they will be better off if we put them 
in a class with some people who can read a little bit better than them, 
but for those spaces that they are giving to the kids who can read a 
little bit better than those who cannot read at all, we do not have any 
place for those people to go.
  It is a no-win argument, and that is what this bill does. It puts us 
in a no-win situation. And all the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is doing is saying, look, we buy into 
the notion that it is a good thing to integrate housing economically, 
to have a mix of economic incomes in this housing; that is a good 
thing. But what are they going to do about those people who are forced 
out of public housing or subsidized housing who do not have anywhere to 
go other than homelessness? And that is what this is about.
  We are in a no-win situation. We need to be allocating some more 
dollars to subsidized housing. We do not have enough. The numbers said 
that what are we serving; but what is the number of housing units, Mr. 
Ranking Member, that we are underserving?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. There are about 16 million people that 
are eligible for public housing, and there are only about 4\1/2\ 
million people that are actually getting served in terms of families.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. So I mean what are we arguing about here? 
The question is are we going to give working poor people a little more 
help and let some people go out on the street and increase 
homelessness, and that is what this bill does, or are we going to cut 
the equation some other way, as Mr. Kennedy's amendment would do it, 
and I do not like either approach. But, Mr. Chairman, as between the 
two I certainly support Mr. Kennedy's approach.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, first, I must recognize with disappointment and chagrin 
the

[[Page H2228]]

drastic impact that this bill will have on a nation's commitment to 
providing a decent, a safe, and an affordable place to live for those 
most in need. Our Republican colleagues charge that the debate should 
focus only on such a commitment and how it cannot be met under their 
budget and with scarcer Federal resources, yet they neglect the 
essential component of the debate on housing, the unassisted American 
families who have dire need for housing.
  Mr. Chairman, these families are shut out of the private rental 
market because of the difficulty, in some cities the economic 
impossibility, for private owners to provide rental housing that is 
affordable to the poor. They are single-parent families supported by 
one minimum wage earner struggling to meet day care and juggling 
overlapping schedules. They are two-parent families who have suffered 
job displacement or trying to find a new job in order to support their 
families. They are the families at the bottom of the income ladder but 
who are grasping onto the ladder with two hands, struggling to reach 
the next rung.
  Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues and I do not rise up and support the 
Kennedy amendment, we will have effectively pulled the ladder out from 
under that vulnerable family because we all know that a person cannot 
find employment if he or she has no home, no place of address, no 
phone, and we all know that a person cannot achieve in a job if he or 
she lives in unstable housing where children are in danger due to the 
unsafe living conditions and where the families' health and nutrition 
is suffering because their rent is eating up, literally speaking, all 
of their disposable income.
  Obviously, there are wise policy reasons to provide affordable 
housing to those in need, but the next question to ask is, can we meet 
the needs of those families by targeting our public and assisted 
housing program as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] 
strongly suggests? Probably not, but we can meet those needs much 
better under the gentleman's amendment than under H.R. 2. The 
gentleman's amendment preserves a majority of housing assistance for 
those who need the most but balances that policy by also reserving 
housing assistance for those at relatively higher income levels in an 
effort to avoid the economic ghettoizing of the past.
  Again, the need for subsidized housing is extremely great. Last year 
in a study released by HUD, we learned that 70 percent of the families 
at 30 percent or below the median area income has been and have 
suffered severe housing needs, meaning those families are living in 
substandard, unsafe, or are paying more than 50 percent of their 
disposable income to rent, or both. Yet we are reducing, even with the 
advances made by Mr. Kennedy's amendment, the availability of 
subsidized housing for those people in the name of economic 
integration. So we already will be keeping more families on the 
streets, reconcentrated in homeless shelters, or doubled up in the 
worst housing available.
  But if this Congress fails the Kennedy amendment, the number of needy 
families without housing alternatives will grow by leaps and bounds, 
and all the good intentions of moving people to work and encouraging 
self-sufficiency will never be realized because people need stability 
in housing and sufficient disposable income to have the capability, let 
alone the wherewithal, to achieve, to succeed and be always grasping 
for the next rung on that ladder.
  For all these reasons it is incumbent upon us to support the 
amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I yield to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Lazio].
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] for yielding me the time, 
and I want to point the Houses's attention, if I can, to this diagram 
in response to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  If we look over here at this diagram, we see over time, since 1992, 
how the average income in public housing has dramatically declined. 
This is not unique to one city or one community around the country. It 
is a generalization across the country that the median income for 
people living in public housing has dropped precipitously.
  We see right over here from about 1980 until today the average median 
income in public housing has dropped from about 35 percent to about 17 
percent, and as we see this line plummet down, so too could we track 
the downward trend in many low-income communities that have public 
housing around them; so too could we track the fact that basic services 
have been fleeing the low-income neighborhoods.
  The gentlewoman from California was bemoaning the fact that there 
were not basic services. Mr. Chairman, the reason there is not basic 
services is because we have forced out the working poor from these very 
neighborhoods. That is why there are not enough people to support the 
local grocery store, that is why there is not enough people to support 
the local laundromat, that is why there is not enough people to ensure 
that we have basic banking services over here.
  What we are talking about in H.R. 2 is to provide maximum flexibility 
to local communities while still assuring that the poorest of the poor 
are taken care of, because at least 35 percent of the units must be 
reserved for people at the lowest end of the economic ladder, below 30 
percent of median income. But in this bill we say that no housing 
authority will be asked not to dedicate all of its units, if it wanted 
to, to people who are very poor, below 30 percent of median income. 
What we are trying to do is match our words and our rhetoric with our 
actions.
  We are for mixed income, we are for keeping the working poor in 
public housing; we are not for punishing them. That is why we want to 
change the rent-setting rules. We are for local flexibility. This is 
very much about ensuring that the working poor can stay in there.
  And let me say a few examples here. In Massachusetts in eight 
metropolitan counties families of four with two parents working full 
time making a $1.51 more than minimum wage will have to compete for 10 
percent of public housing units if this amendment is adopted.

                              {time}  1930

  In Vermont, in 11 counties, a family of four with both parents 
working, making only 26 cents greater than minimum wage, will compete 
for only 10 percent. In Providence and in many counties in Rhode 
Island, the same families making $1.51 more than minimum wage will have 
to compete for 10 percent of the public housing units.
  We are here to say that just because one is working does not mean 
that one ought to be biased against, it does not mean that one ought to 
be punished. We want to build that social capital capacity in public 
housing. We want to ensure that there are role models. We want to make 
sure that we do not force the working poor out, the people of modest 
income, simply because they have a job.
  Mr. Chairman, back in 1968 under the Great Society when Lyndon 
Johnson was President, he signed into law a piece of legislation that 
would have targeted our resources to those people not making below 80 
percent of median income, which is an absolute ceiling in our bill, but 
below 90 percent of median income.
  However, what have we done over the years? This Congress year after 
year has said that there is more wisdom in Washington and we are going 
to impose more Federal preferences, and we are going to concentrate 
more poverty and we are going to drive more poor working people out of 
public housing and out of the inner city. So now we have doughnuts. We 
have decay in some inner city neighborhoods and we have the working 
poor, that would be stability, that would be the bedrocks of the 
community, moving out into the suburban areas.
  We are trying to get that synergy of having the working poor and the 
poor live side by side because we think it is the right environment to 
help the very poor, because we know there is never going to be enough 
money, there will never be enough money to rebuild every building.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] has 
expired.

[[Page H2229]]

  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an 
additional 2 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Iowa?
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object--
--
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous consent request.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, this is about building that type of synergy. 
This is about ensuring that we reconnect, reconnect people with their 
civic duty, reconnect the working class with the people that are 
unemployed. We are not saying that people who are unemployed are not 
worthy of public housing; we are just saying where we have concentrated 
the unemployed, the people of very low incomes in certain communities, 
it has proven to be disastrous.
  That is why virtually every public housing authority across the 
country and every large public housing association that represents 
housing authorities that work with these tenants are in support of more 
local flexibility, are in support of our approach.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding. The gentleman was talking about all of this local flexibility 
we are giving. I would ask the gentleman, where was that argument when 
we were talking about the local flexibility that we were trying to give 
them under the last section of the bill?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there is 
absolute local flexibility in terms of community work requirement. Any 
tenant and any housing authority can choose any number of ways in which 
they can fulfill that requirement.
  This is basically about ensuring flexibility. This is putting your 
money where your mouth is. We have heard a lot of talk in this city 
about getting to mixed income, and when it comes down to the votes and 
doing something about it, people run and hide or they demagogue.
  In fact, do not take my word for it. Listen to the housing 
authorities, the people who are rolling up their sleeves, who are doing 
this hard work month after month, year after year. They are asking for 
this. Even the best-run housing authorities in the country are finding 
that they are getting swamped by the social services needs when we 
concentrate, super concentrate poverty in some of our Nation's 
communities.
  So we find the streets in Chicago with 4\1/2\ straight miles of 
public housing where virtually everybody is unemployed. What happens in 
that area? How many stores are in that area? How many banks are in that 
area? How many laundromats are in that area? There are none. I have 
been there, and the reason is that we have forced out the working poor 
that would support those basic services, that would help create the 
type of environment that we want for every American child.
  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 think the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Lazio] has a very interesting chart, and I would 
just like to bring the attention of the gentleman to the chart that we 
brought.
  The truth is that we believe in a lot of the rhetoric that the 
gentleman has just talked about. What I would like to point out to the 
gentleman from New York is that under our proposal, we are not 
suggesting that we continue public housing at 17 percent of median 
income. We are allowing, under the Democratic alternative, we would 
allow that the amendment that is before us, over the period of 10 years 
we would go to a 50-50 mix.
  All I am trying to suggest is that it is not just because of the 
Federal preferences, it is not just because of the directives that have 
come from the Federal Government; it is because the sheer number of 
very poor people in this country has grown so substantially. I just 
think we have to deal with that issue.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the issue is 
not just the amount of poor people, because we have quadrupled our 
spending in housing since 1980. This is not just about money. This is 
about basic management, about creating the right incentives, about 
ensuring that we have mixed income.
  If I can just finish, if I could just finish my thought to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the real controversy that 
we have here is that while we say we are for mixed income, we say we 
are for keeping the working poor in public housing, the net effect of 
the gentleman's amendment, if it is adopted, is to condemn another 
generation of residents, of young people, to live in that same area, 
the same environment of super concentrations of poverty.
  That is happening here in our own Nation's Capital. We do not think 
we can take another year like this. We do not think we can take another 
5 years, we surely do not think we can take another 10 years like this.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding. There is a long, long waiting list to get into public 
housing, very poor people. What does the gentleman propose to do with 
those people? The gentleman is saying that he does not want them 
condemned to public housing. The alternative is to condemn them to the 
streets.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we are going 
to spend over half of the additional spending in this budget deal on 
low-income housing. In addition, we spent over $1 billion on the 
homeless, which we will again.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I was just thinking that if H.R. 2 is a friend of the 
working poor, then I am certain that the people in Robert Taylor, Henry 
Horner and Cabrini Green, and some other places that I know, would say, 
``Do not send me any enemies.''
  The more I listen to the debate, the more I am firmly convinced that 
no matter what the intent, no matter what the hope, no matter what the 
most basic desire, I am convinced that the outcome of H.R. 2 would 
become a part of the continuing attack on the poor, would become a part 
of continuing to strip the poor people of this country of their last 
ounce of dignity.
  That is why I rise to support the Kennedy amendment, because it 
attempts and it does restore some of that basic humaneness to public 
housing, in the public housing act in this country. It contains the 
kind of flexibility that is needed, that will allow people to work and 
remain in public housing. Everybody that works does not necessarily 
earn enough money not to need a subsidy. That is why we need a minimum 
wage that gives people a livable wage.
  So this amendment attempts to say to America that we do not 
necessarily have to try and throw out the baby with the bath water 
every time we attempt to correct something.
  I would agree with those who suggest that public housing is in need 
of reform. I would agree with those who suggest that it is laudable for 
people to volunteer. As a matter of fact, I come from a history of 
volunteerism, so much so that people generally do not know the 
difference between what they do for work, what they do for pay, and 
what they do because it needs to be done.
  However, when we force people, when we take away their pride, we take 
away their dignity, we take away their most basic and most human of all 
instincts, and that is to make decisions for themselves.
  So I would hope that after the dust settles, after all is said and 
done, that we will come to our senses and realize that if America is to 
ever be the one America that we talk about it being, then we have to 
say to all of its citizens that no matter what their status, we will 
look after their interests; no matter what their status, we believe 
that they can live with dignity and they can live with pride.
  So I would hope that we would vote for the Kennedy amendment, that we 
would restore dignity, pride and meaning to the public housing act in 
this country.

[[Page H2230]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, let me just take a minute 
and commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Davis] for the powerful 
words that he has spoken and for the manner in which he has spoken 
them. A lot of us have been involved in this debate for 2 or 3 days 
now, and some of us may be losing perspective, but the gentleman was 
right on point.
  I am fascinated by the argument that our chairman of the subcommittee 
has used with this chart here, because as I recall, all of us supported 
what we call scattered-site housing. To hear my Republican colleagues 
now come back and say that by encouraging scattered-site housing and 
the movement out to the suburbs, all of a sudden we have created the 
problem now where we have public housing that has an over-concentration 
of the very poor, is amazing to me.
  We did not create this problem; the problem got created because we 
have too many poor people in this country and not enough public 
housing, not enough housing for people whether they are very poor or 
whether they are the working poor.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Davis] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Watt of North Carolina, and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. Davis of Illinois was allowed to proceed for 30 additional 
seconds.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
continuing to yield.
  This whole notion that somehow we should just turn our backs on the 
poorest people in this country and let them go to the street, then I 
guess the next thing beyond this policy that is in this bill is they 
will be back in here a couple of years from now saying, well, we put 
all of these people on the street now, and now it is your fault because 
we were all trying to do something good.
  Well, all of us are trying to do something good here. All of us are 
trying to do something good, and this holier than thou attitude, we 
have the right bill, we have the right cause, we are wrapping ourselves 
in the flag, is just ridiculous, and we should not be going through 
that in this body.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important to say that we do not 
believe we have all of the answers. All we have is the belief that what 
we have today simply does not work. We may well come back here, despite 
the chairman's best effort, next Congress and say, ``Hey, guys, this 
did not do it. We're going to have to make some changes in the way 
we've tried it.''

                              {time}  1945

  It was President Roosevelt who said, ``We owe it to the American 
people to do bold things and try it, and and if they fail to work, come 
back, acknowledge it, and try again.''
  But to stand here together tonight after quadrupling the budget for 
housing four times over since 1980, I understand that the deal made in 
the budget, which I was not part of, of the $70 billion in 
discretionary spending, some $37 million is allocated to section 8 
certificates over the next 5 years, with the effort made, honestly and 
frankly, to pour money into programs.
  I will give the Members one that I do know, the section 235 program 
some years ago, an interest rate buydown program that allowed families 
to move in with interest rate subsidies, into homes. It was a good idea 
on paper. It did not work. People were taken from a poor public housing 
environment and placed into home ownership responsibilities. It was a 
disaster. The program was canceled because we did not do anything but 
provide for money.
  This is more than just providing money. These are human beings. I 
listened to a Member earlier talk about the conditions in public 
housing. She is right: Dirty halls, doors off apartments where single 
women with children live. There was a suit at Desire Street housing 
project; a kid fell out of a window from a second story, was 
permanently disabled, and the window did not even have glass, did not 
have a frame, there was a hole in the wall. It had been reported to the 
housing authority for years.
  Money spent on fire and smoke detectors; they were put in a 
warehouse, kept locked up for years, and a family died, the whole 
family. They have a lawsuit filed claiming damages against the housing 
authority. They still have not been paid. It is an outrage. It is an 
absolute outrage.
  I share the frustrations some Members have on this side with our 
belief that by requiring people to work, by mixing families together of 
a different background and income level, that by counseling people with 
these silly schemes, that all this stuff is just simply going to make 
it worse. I do not believe that. I simply do not believe that.
  What I know is what we have. It does not work. We need to take people 
who cannot read and give them an opportunity to learn, people who do 
not have job skills, and teach them how to work; people who have job 
skills, we need to get them into the community and do something where 
they live. There is nothing wrong with that.
  But to say that we are going to allow more working poor into a public 
housing unit and bring their meager paycheck, despite the fact many 
call them rich, I cannot imagine raising a family of four in a city of 
New York on $30,000. I am sure people do it, but it has to be tough.
  We are going to say to those people, no, you cannot come in and bring 
your families; and dads who go to work in the morning, and moms who 
stay home and try to take care of the kids, and kids, by the way, who 
go to school? You can run into individuals in public housing today, 
little kids, they have given up. That is why 13-year-olds shoot other 
13-year-olds for tennis shoes, my friends, because they do not believe 
tomorrow will be any better than today. It is a terrible circumstance.
  What I am suggesting is that taking the bold steps we take here 
tonight may not be the answer, but it has got to be better than what we 
have been doing for the last decade. Let us give it a try.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first, I know we have now 
twice heard the argument that the budget deal is going to give all this 
money for section 8's. My understanding is that it is simply a renewal 
of the existing section 8's. That was originally cited as an answer to 
the question of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], when poor 
people are excluded from this because of the retargeting, where will 
they go? And the gentleman from New York said, well, we are giving all 
this money to section 8's. But that is to continue the existing section 
8's. That is renewal. It does not add one unit. It prevents the loss of 
units. It does not add units.
  I would say to the gentleman from Louisiana, I do not think there are 
solutions to these problems that exclude greater resources. I do not 
think you can counsel people into filling a hole in the wall.
  Mr. BAKER. If I may reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, when they talk about the 
budget deal, are they talking about the renewal of section 8's? And 
does the gentleman really consider the renewal of section 8's new 
resources for housing?
  Mr. BAKER. I will respond to the gentleman on the housing 
information.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Baker] 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Watt of North Carolina and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. Baker was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, let me say, when we spend $37 
billion additional dollars, which is over half of the increase in 
discretionary spending, to meet the needs for affordable housing where 
we subsidize units that does not run with the people, that means every 
time somebody vacates that unit, it opens up for new people to come in 
and to get the benefit of that

[[Page H2231]]

assisted housing. So it means that literally tens of thousands of 
Americans, in addition to who we are serving right now, will be able to 
get the benefit of that situation.
  Mr. BAKER. Reclaiming my time just for a moment, I would simply make 
the point the gentleman's view is that more money is the answer. My 
view is more money has not been the answer. I think that is one of the 
issues.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. More money is part of the answer. When we 
are worried about the military, more money is the answer. When we are 
worried about space, more money is the answer. Money only gets 
denigrated when it is poor people who may get some.
  I would also say to the gentleman from New York, first of all, we are 
talking about section 8, not public housing.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Baker] 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. Baker was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about the 
same number of section 8s. Yes, we are talking about renewing the 
existing section 8s. I am willing to bet most people who heard the 
gentleman when he talked about all this new money in the budget deal 
thought he was talking about new units. We now have a big waiting list. 
Maintaining the same number of units, preventing them from dropping, is 
not going to eat into the waiting list.
  Mr. BAKER. Reclaiming my time, I would simply like to address the 
point that the question of more money has been demonstrated not 
necessarily always to be the answer, whether it is defense or whether 
it is any other appropriations measure. I think that is what the 
balanced budget deal is all about.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, let me make two quick 
points. No. 1, I want to tell the gentleman how much I respect the fact 
that he acknowledged he does not have the perfect solution.
  Mr. BAKER. I have not heard one, either.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. We are all interested in finding a better 
solution. I think one of the things we have been hearing over and over 
again is this bill is so perfect we cannot do anything to it to amend 
it and make it better. That is a bad, bad attitude about it.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, if I could reclaim my time, I do believe the 
chairman did agree to amendments tonight, without objection, that were 
enhancements, so we are getting there.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. If the gentleman will continue to yield, 
the second point I want to make is I understand that we try things. I 
have children and I tell them, hey, do not do this, you are making a 
mistake. Sometimes they have to go out and learn for themselves. But if 
you know that you have all these people on the waiting list with no 
housing for them----
  Mr. BAKER. That is today.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. And there is no place for them to go but 
either public housing or to the street; what is the answer? There is 
nothing in this bill that is addressing that.
  Mr. BAKER. If I could reclaim my time, what the gentleman is 
suggesting, that we have people waiting today who cannot get access to 
housing, that is a tragedy, I agree. What I am saying is let us create 
a better environment where we do have public housing by enhancing the 
conditions for those who must live there. Certainly we have an unmet 
need, but let us do both.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Baker] 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. Baker was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify 
some of the numbers utilized here this evening. First and foremost, we 
hear time and time again references back to 1980. I would point out to 
the gentleman from Louisiana as well as to the gentleman from New York 
that this country in 1980 spent $30 billion on affordable housing, and 
built over 300,000 new units of affordable housing for poor people in 
that year.
  Prior to 1980 in this country we did not see a lot of homelessness, 
because we had a housing policy where we took care of the housing needs 
of our very poor. Since 1980, since Ronald Reagan was elected 
President, the housing budget in this country has been slashed and 
beaten unlike any other in the entire Federal budget. That is a 
decline. That is why we have the homeless.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I want to establish that the 
idea that more money and more money and more money is the answer to 
poverty is contradicted by the chart right behind the gentleman, which 
shows that since 1982, as median income has been going down, operating 
subsidies have been going through the roof, and we have not made a dent 
in poverty. We still have slums that have been subsidized by the 
Federal Government.
  Mr. BAKER. I end where I began. Money is not always the answer.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think that anybody is going to say that money 
is going to solve all the problems, but I understand why the housing 
authorities want to have this mixed population move in. The reason they 
want to have it move in is because, with the pressure on their budgets, 
they simply cannot afford to run these units if they are only serving 
poor people, so they have to get rid of the poor people in order to 
stay within budget, so they have economic pressures to move the poor 
people, the very people that these programs were designed to serve, out 
of these units.
  I also find it amazingly ironic when we are talking about having 
mixed populations. I, along with the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Watt], agree that it is appropriate to have mixed populations. But I do 
not think we would be having the same debate that we are having here 
tonight if the mixed population debate we are talking about was moving 
these poor people out in the suburbs. Then, all of a sudden, this would 
not be such a great idea. But somehow, by having them move into these 
housing projects, it is a different scenario altogether.
  I also want to take a moment, with the indulgence of my colleagues on 
the floor tonight, to address an issue that was raised earlier this 
evening because it deals with a housing unit in my district; and that 
is the Hillside housing unit. Earlier this evening, it was represented 
to this body that the Hillside housing unit is a model for the Nation 
because it has a work requirement in the lease and that is correct.
  That was actually put into the lease, and this will be interesting to 
my colleagues, at the request of the tenants. The tenants asked that 
this be included. And it was done because there were literally millions 
of dollars that were put into the Hillside housing unit in Milwaukee. 
This is a wonderful housing unit. Incidentally, Oprah Winfrey at one 
point lived in this housing unit, so that will give Members an 
indication that it is not a terrible housing unit.
  But the irony is, when I was listening to this debate this afternoon, 
I called the housing unit and I said, ``What's the story? Is this a 
good provision?'' And they explained to me it was put in at the request 
of the tenants. And I said, ``Is this something that you are applying 
to all the other housing units in Milwaukee?'' And they said, ``No, no, 
no. We are opposed to this mandate.''
  The reason they are opposed to this mandate is because, as the 
gentleman

[[Page H2232]]

from North Carolina and the gentleman from Illinois have argued earlier 
tonight, is that the bureaucratic cost of administering this without 
any funds from the Federal Government makes it too onerous. So what we 
have done is we have taken a project that serves 180 families, 
basically, and we have extrapolated it now to national policy.
  My feeling is that, if this is such a great idea, and I believe in 
local laboratories of democracy we should be doing what we tried to do, 
and that is give the local units, the local authorities the opportunity 
to do this, or we should give the tenants themselves the opportunity to 
do this. But to have this mandated by big brother in Washington I think 
flies in the face of logic. So I wanted to set the record straight on 
that.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  First of all, let me say to the gentleman from Louisiana and the 
gentleman from New York that I appreciate their willingness to engage 
in the colloquies that they have in this debate. I would just like to 
come back to the fact that we are not suggesting that simply resources 
alone are enough to solve this problem.
  But when the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] suggests that 
resources are not an answer to poverty, I would suggest that more money 
really is an answer to poverty. I think that is the definition of 
``poverty'' is not having enough money. But, in any event, I think that 
what we are trying to suggest on our charts is that nobody wants to 
perpetuate the status quo, nobody is suggesting that we continue 
warehousing the very, very poor in these monstrosities where only the 
very poor live.
  We are trying to achieve a glide path so that the very, very poor are 
not going to be simply thrown out and not have any safety net to take 
care of them. All I would ask the gentleman is, if he really believes 
in his heart that this is the correct policy, then how can he pursue 
this policy without contributing more money to this entire program? If 
he is suggesting that the answer to public housing is to get more 
working families involved in public housing, then how does he justify 
doing that by not taking care of the same number of very poor people 
that we have in the past by simply abandoning them?
  That is essentially what is going to take place under this 
legislation. So I ask the gentleman from New York, what is he going to 
do with those very, very poor people who are no longer going to receive 
any benefit from their government and we have cut the homeless budget 
at the same time?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I think what distinguishes us is 
the fact that, under our program, under this bill, we are hopeful of 
creating environments where poor people can actually transition out, 
where we can actually make more availability. We are going to spend 
more money on the homeless than we ever have in our history this year.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts, and by unanimous 
consent, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, they are going to 
transition to where? The gentleman keeps saying they are going to 
transition to somewhere. He said before, we are going to spend all this 
money, it is just to renew the section 8, it is these same number of 
units. And this notion that they are going to transition to somewhere. 
Where? Oz? Fairyland?
  This is out of sight, out of mind to the very poor. Of course we 
should make these changes. But, essentially, what the gentleman from 
Long Island [Mr. Lazio] is saying is, dealing with these very poor 
people has not worked because they are too hard to deal with and let us 
start ignoring them and then we can claim success and God knows what 
will happen to them.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I think most of us could concede that income mix, H.R. 2's policy is 
going to be successful in terms of the working poor. The question is, 
at what price? At what cost? What happens? Do we have 16 million 
families in 4 million units? That is the problem.
  The question is, who are we going to give priority to? My colleague 
is suggesting giving it to those who have upper income in this 
particular category, and the fact is that gentleman from Massachusetts' 
policy would be successful. We can concede that. But the fact is, how 
do we do it? How do we make that particular transition? I submit that 
is very important.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I would just simply point out that the point 
I was making earlier is that we have miserable conditions today in two 
places. We have a waiting line. And we have terrible housing. What we 
are suggesting is let us try to improve the environment within the 
resources we have in those housing units. We certainly have a backlog 
with which we have to deal but that is there today.
  My point is, are we going to simply ignore, as some perhaps think is 
appropriate, the conditions that people must live in now? The answer is 
no. Let us do something to improve the quality of life there. That is 
my point.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett] 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Vento, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Barrett of 
Wisconsin was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out the fact is that 
public housing is not the bleak picture that often is being portrayed 
here where we have some 75 troubled projects which do comprise a 
significant population of a half million or so people. There are many 
others that are very successful that are working in my communities, in 
the gentleman's community. In Milwaukee, public housing is among the 
best housing for low-income persons. It is working in St. Paul and 
Minneapolis. It is working in Milwaukee. We do have troubled housing 
projects some places though. This is the point in terms of what we are 
talking about here. As we change this so that it works in some of the 
troubled areas, let us not in fact do it on the backs of the poor. We 
are creating a class of individuals that are too poor for public 
housing now.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make 
the point that we have suggested that the reason for the problem that 
my colleague has articulated is because of the concentration of very 
poor people in public housing. When this argument shifts to the voucher 
program, we will no longer have the argument that we are simply putting 
all these poor people together in single projects.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett] 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts, and by unanimous 
consent, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin was allowed to proceed for 20 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield, under the voucher program people will be allowed to 
go across all city lines, go wherever they want. So whatever arguments 
my colleague is making today on the project based program or on public 
housing will not be appropriate to the voucher program which will come 
up tomorrow.

[[Page H2233]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  The amendment was rejected.


         Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.

  Mr. FRANK 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. 5 offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts:
       Page 102, strike line 1 and all that follows through line 7 
     on page 104, and insert the following:

     SEC. 225. FAMILY RENTAL PAYMENT.

       (a) Rental Contribution by Resident.--A family residing in 
     a public housing dwelling shall pay as monthly rent for the 
     unit an amount, determined by the public housing agency, that 
     does not exceed the greatest of the following amounts 
     (rounded to the nearest dollar):
       (A) 30 percent of the monthly adjusted income of the 
     family.
       (B) 10 percent of the monthly income of the family.
       (C) If the family is receiving payments for welfare 
     assistance from a public agency and a part of such payments, 
     adjusted in accordance with the actual housing costs of the 
     family, is specifically designated by such agency to meet the 
     housing costs of the family, the portion of such payments 
     that is so designated.
       (b) Minimum Rental Amount.--Each public housing agency 
     shall require
       Page 105, strike line 21 and all that follows through line 
     19 on page 106.
       Page 107, strike ``, except that'' on line 2 and all that 
     follows through line 5, and insert a period.

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first let me say to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, I know he has pointed out that the 
rationale presented will not apply to section 8, but have no fear, they 
will come up with one tomorrow night; by tomorrow, overnight, they will 
come up with a new reason.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a further effort to get some of the unnecessary 
bureaucratic gobbledegook out of this bill.
  Last year we debated at length in this bill an effort by the majority 
to raise the amount of rent that tenants could be forced to pay. The 
maximum is now 30 percent. The majority was determined to raise it.
  I have to say to those Members on the majority side who were here 
last year and a few on our side who loyally voted with the chairman and 
supported him on vote after vote to raise the rents, maybe they feel a 
little bit perturbed that that was all in vain because that part has 
now been given up. I admire the fact that this bill no longer tries to 
raise the rents of the poor.
  Instead it tries to complicate them unduly and unnecessarily for the 
low income people and for the housing authorities.
  We agreed last year, although I must say the chairman of the 
subcommittee last year was determined not to be agreed with, when we 
kept agreeing with him, but we agreed that having the 30 percent be a 
minimum as well as a maximum was a bad idea. Our amendment last year 
said it should not be a minimum. It said it should be a maximum.
  This amendment says very simply the housing authorities can charge 
whatever rents they want by whatever method they want as long as that 
amount does not exceed 30 percent of income.
  The chairman of the subcommittee is fond of having a flat rent 
charged for apartments. What this bill does, and it takes about five or 
seven pages to do it, it once again orders the housing authority to 
engage in a very complicated choice process. It says the housing 
authority will set a flat rent for the unit, and it will have a 30-
percent maximum rent. And then it will have the tenant choose each year 
which one he wants. But if the tenant has chosen the flat rent and the 
tenant's income goes down, then the tenant can be given a hardship 
exemption. If the tenant has chosen the 30 percent and the tenant's 
income goes up, then she has an 18-month phase-in, and during the 18-
month phase-in she has a 12-month reelection period.
  It is a seven-page complication, frankly, I think to save a little 
bit of face because the chairman was determined to take a nick out of 
the Brook amendment. And they decided last year they had taken the 
wrong nick. But there are seven pages of complication.
  Once again, it orders it to every housing authority. The chairman is 
a fan of the flat rent method. Let the housing authorities decide. That 
might be appropriate for some housing authorities. It might be too 
difficult for others.
  This amendment that I offer allows them to do that. It says to the 
housing authorities: You do whatever you want. If you want to tie it to 
income with a 30 percent cap, you can do that. If you want to give them 
a choice between a flat rent and a 30 percent, you can do that.
  Are we now deciding that everywhere in the United States in every 
type of project there is this one method that works and that has to be 
done, and it is a method where you choose either a flat rent or a 
percentage of your income every year? But there is a way to get out of 
one and there is a way to get out of another, and it is, once again, 
piling on a complication. It is about the third or fourth additional 
mandate that we put on the housing authorities.
  The alternative seems to me to be very simple. It says: No, there is 
no minimum. If you want to have a work incentive, you can have that. If 
you want to have a flat rent, you can have that. If you want to put a 
top of 20 percent, you can have that. You can do, as the housing 
authority, anything you want. You might decide for different tenants 
different things work.
  The housing authorities might even want to experiment. My friend from 
Louisiana talked about the importance of experiments. Are we the only 
ones who can experiment? I do not think that is the best way to 
experiment. Why not give the housing authorities flexibility and let 
various housing authorities experiment with different types of rents 
rather than take the pet project of the chairman, which is this very 
complicated system. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that Members, before voting 
on this, will have a chance to read these seven pages.
  In fact maybe instead of a vote on this we should have a test. And we 
will have a test on that. And if a majority of the Members can 
understand it and explain it, then we will have it enacted. And if a 
majority of the Members cannot, we will not have it enacted.
  I have another provision that I want to suggest to my colleagues. 
They said that the tenants really want the work requirement and the 
tenants want the self-sufficiency.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts was allowed to 
proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am going to propose an 
amendment later on that we have a tenants' referendum on these things. 
I do not doubt the sincerity of my colleagues in insisting that the 
work requirement and the self-sufficiency contract are really what the 
tenants want. They should want the tenants then to have a referendum on 
this because that would show how much they want it. And instead of this 
extraordinarily complicated seven-page scheme, why not simply say to 
the housing authorities: You can do flat rent if you want. You can do 
per unit rent. You can do a rent tied to income. The only thing you 
cannot do is go above 30 percent.
  That is what this amendment says.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to state my strong unequivocal support for the 
Frank amendment. It is simple. It is fair. And it is a reasonable 
compromise to the provisions of H.R. 2. It protects many of the 
Nation's most vulnerable from excessive rents. The Frank amendment 
caps, it does not set, income based rents at 30 percent of income. It 
provides for rent reform with ceiling rents and income disallowances. 
It allows the public housing authorities the flexibility to establish 
flat rent subsidies and eliminate the disincentives to earn additional 
income, just as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] wants. And it 
requires the PHA's to establish market disciplines that are important 
to managing real estate and that rightfully are important to the 
chairman.
  It does not permit PHA's to charge public housing residents flat 
rents that are higher than 30 percent of their limited incomes, as the 
Lazio provisions would permit and, along with other provisions of the 
bill, would encourage.

[[Page H2234]]

  I believe that the provisions of H.R. 2 would tend to encourage flat 
rents set far higher than 30 percent of most of the public housing 
tenants' incomes, because the rents are to reflect market rents, not 
operating costs.
  The Frank approach would tend to encourage rents set that were 
affordable to the overwhelming majority of the public housing 
residents, those whose incomes are 30 percent of median income.
  I would like to remind the House of a few facts. Currently the 
average monthly rent paid by all public housing residents is $185, far 
less than operating costs or most market rents, and 75 percent of all 
current residents have annual incomes that are less than $10,000. Most 
public housing residents simply cannot afford to pay rents that equal 
operating costs or the market.
  So the rent choice is hollow, also administratively burdensome and 
complicated. Few if any residents will choose to pay more than 30 
percent of income for rent.
  Finally, let me suggest that over time the rent setting methods in 
H.R. 2 could end up segregating the very poor in the worst and the most 
rundown developments. PHAs would direct families choosing to pay income 
based rents to those properties where the public housing authorities 
would lose the least money, and those who would agree to pay the higher 
flat rents would be steered, that is directed to the better properties. 
Although unintended, I believe that would be shameful.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. It is a fair and a sensible compromise.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to have the 
support of a man who has done more for public housing, I believe, than 
any man who has served in the Congress of the United States, and for 
the tenants.
  I want to point that the complications here are such that some people 
are going to get trapped by it, and some people are going to wind up 
paying more than 30 percent of their income because there is a very 
complicated set of calculations that have to be made. There is also the 
possibility of coercion. So it is unnecessarily complicated, and it may 
lead to periods where people will wind up paying more than 30 percent. 
My amendment says again they have total flexibility but it makes that 
impossible.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  I would like to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Housing and Economic Opportunity. We worked on this, on 
a version of this amendment last year. And the chairman has, I think, 
shown great leadership by changing the amendment that was offered last 
year and recognizing the fact that we both have in common the desire to 
take away work disincentives.
  I believe that the amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Frank has offered has not only the benefit of getting rid of the 
work disincentive but it also creates another perverse aspect of what 
is currently contained in H.R. 2. I would appreciate it if the 
gentleman from New York would explain how this concern is going to be 
dealt with.

                              {time}  2015

  Under the bill as it is currently written, it seems that there would 
be an incentive by an individual who is in public housing, that has an 
opportunity to move to a housing authority's building that happens to 
be better than the building that they are currently in, if they have a 
little bit of additional income and they can pay above 30 percent in 
order to choose a better unit in another housing project, and because 
of the last debate, where the gentleman indicated his desire for public 
housing to have a greater mix of working families, our concern, and I 
think the amendment of gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], gets 
at what will in fact be a disincentive for those working families to go 
to some of the worst housing projects.
  If part of our solution of fixing some of these bad housing projects 
is to get more working families to go there, and if we have, however, 
in the bill an incentive that says, listen, if they are willing to 
actually pay 35 percent of their income, and then they get to go to a 
better housing project, does the gentleman not feel that we have in 
fact, not intentionally, but in a sort of in a quirk of the law, 
created a disincentive for the very projects that the gentleman wants 
to improve?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would say firstly that the 
object of H.R. 2 is to make sure there are no bad housing complexes.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I was 
not interested in going into a long debate on all the benefits of the 
gentleman's bill. I wanted to understand how he was going to fix this 
problem we are trying to deal with.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman 
that it is a valid point; that we are looking to ensure that we do not 
have any bad housing.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to have my 
amendment say that this does not take effect until we have no bad 
housing projects. Once that happens, then this could take effect.
  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, first of all, I would say to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] that I would be willing to buy 
into his last comment.
  I would say also, that just as in the case with poor people or the 
working poor that are in nonpublic housing, those people that have the 
ability to make a choice to move into another public housing unit, when 
one becomes vacant, will probably exercise that choice, and that is 
great.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, what 
we are trying to suggest is that the gentleman has created a perverse 
incentive that will actually funnel people away from the housing 
projects that perhaps are undesirable and leave those to the very poor, 
which will make them not better but, over a period of time, will create 
the warehousing effect that the gentleman has just said for the last 
hour and a half he is opposed to.
  So what we have here is a situation where the gentleman is saying he 
is opposed to the warehousing effect, but what he is really going to do 
is he is going to back door the warehouse effect by virtue of the fact 
that he has created an incentive for anybody that has enough income to 
pay a little bit above 30 percent where some of that money will stick 
to the back pocket of the housing authority. So the housing authority 
now has an incentive to get the people into the better housing 
projects.
  So we end up with, I think, a very perverse consequence to the 
provisions the gentleman has included in this bill. And I think the 
amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] gets to the 
heart of that, which is we should just go back to the plain old Brooke 
amendment, which the Republican Senator wrote several years ago, and it 
seems to have worked very 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, I would say to the gentleman 
that the other choice that somebody has who is in public housing that 
does not like their unit is to leave public housing altogether, which 
would serve as it does right now to continue to concentrate the poor.
  The discussion is whether to retain what we have right now, which 
taxes work and punishes working families, or to give them some other 
options and choices.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, here

[[Page H2235]]

again we have the situation where what we say is we are going to punish 
the poor and reward people that have a little bit more money. It is a 
perverse way of handling and dealing with a substantive problem.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman. I rise today to express my deep concern 
about the future of families living in America's public housing 
developments. H.R. 2, the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act, 
represents a dramatic restructuring of public housing that will have 
consequences, perhaps unintended and detrimental to the millions of 
Americans the programs were intended to serve. I am especially 
concerned because this bill includes a section which would repeal the 
income-based rent cap of 30 percent in public housing, otherwise known 
as the Brooke Amendment.
  In the borough of Brooklyn, which includes the 10th Congressional 
District which I represent, there are at least 33,485 public housing 
units--the second largest in New York City, and one of the largest in 
the Nation. A repeal of this rent cap, which has assisted families for 
decades, would lead to rent increases for numerous public housing 
residents and to further segregation for the poor. At a time when our 
Nation is facing an affordable housing crisis in which 5.3 million 
people are living under the worst housing conditions--paying more than 
50 percent of their income in rent or living under substandard or 
deplorable conditions, this amounts to an outright abandonment of our 
commitment to adequate housing for poor and working class citizens.
  Reform can be positive or negative. While I agree with my colleagues 
that our public housing system is in great need of comprehensive 
reform, I believe it is essential in any reform of public housing that 
we keep income-based rent at a 30 percent cap. Eliminating these 
provisions will exacerbate this affordable housing crisis by either 
forcing families into homelessness or causing them to forego basic 
human necessities such as clothing, food, and health care. About two-
thirds of the families who would be affected by this provision would be 
families with children, including elderly grandparents raising their 
grandchildren. I also believe that in this time of fiscal restraint, 
Federal housing dollars should be targeted to those with the greatest 
need. According to HUD's study released in March 1996, Rental Housing 
Units at the Crossroads, 70 percent of the families below 30 percent of 
the area's median income have severe housing needs. Congress should 
pass a comprehensive housing reform bill that is responsive to 
Americans who are in need of housing assistance. I remain hopeful that 
the full House of Representatives will make further improvements to 
this bill.
  The long history of public housing has many successes to its credit, 
and the lifting of current 30 percent rent cap will ultimately do more 
harm than good. I urge the adoption of the Frank amendment which would 
maintain a 30 percent rent cap.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 133, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank] will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments to title II?


        Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, No. 
46.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 46 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts:
       Page 164, strike lines 1 through 4 and insert the 
     following:
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated for grants under this section for each of 
     fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002--
       (A) $500,000,000, which shall be available only for use for 
     activities under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection 
     (a); and
       (B) such sums as may be necessary, which shall be available 
     only for use for activities under subsection (a)(4).
       Page 173, strike lines 8 through 13 and insert the 
     following:
       (1) Capital fund.--For the allocations from the capital 
     fund for grants, $3,700,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.
       (5) Operating fund.--For the allocations from the operating 
     fund for grants--
       (A) $3,200,000,000 for fiscal year 1998; and
       (B) for each of fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, 
     such sums as may be necessary to provide each eligible public 
     housing agency with the full amount determined under the 
     formula under section 204(c)(2) or 204(d)(1), as applicable, 
     for such agency to cover operating expenses for the agency.

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this amendment goes to 
the basic issue of funding. Now, we have heard an awful lot of rhetoric 
this evening about how funding itself is not the major problem with 
public housing, it is not the major problem with poverty, but the truth 
of the matter is what we end up doing as a consequence of our 
condemnation of all these terrible public housing units is to then cut 
funding from almost $29 billion to just over $20 billion.
  And I do not suggest for one moment that it is just the other side of 
the aisle that is guilty of this reaction, the truth of the matter is 
that the administration has come in with a budget that far underfunds 
the necessary, I think, levels that are required if we are going to 
actually deal with the issue of homelessness and shelter for our poor.
  This amendment suggests that we do have the funds to achieve that in 
this country. We seem unwilling to take that money from other areas of 
the Government. When the Pentagon comes in last year and suggests that 
they want an additional request over and above what the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff requested on their behalf, we say here, here is $14 billion more 
than you even requested.
  But when it comes to public housing, when it comes to the housing 
programs of this country, what we do is say, oh gosh, public housing is 
in terrible shape. What is our reaction? We cut it. We say, gosh, if we 
want to improve public housing in America, the best thing we can do is 
go out and cut funding for it.
  I am not trying to suggest that the answer to getting people out of 
poverty at all times is to just give them money, but I would certainly 
suggest if we want to deal with homeless people on the street--I was 
out in California a couple of weeks ago, 2 or 3 weeks ago, and I was 
driving through one of the wealthiest sections of America, down through 
the streets of Beverly Hills, the most incredible palaces we have built 
in the United States of America. And all the people are walking around 
looking at all the stars' homes, and it is an absolutely lavish kind of 
neighborhood. And yet there was something astounding; that on almost 
every lawn of that neighborhood there was a homeless person lying on 
the grass.
  My colleagues, we have a problem in this country where we have not 
built housing for the poor. Over the course of the last several years 
we have seen the number of housing units that we have not built because 
we have not provided funding to go to about three or four million 
units. If we take the number of housing units that stopped being built 
going back in 1980, which is about when we saw the rise in homelessness 
in America, we will find that, if we add up all those numbers, we did 
not build about three to four million housing units.
  Over that same period of time, if we go to talk to the people of our 
country that work with the homeless families in America, we will find 
that their best estimates are that there are about three or four 
million people in this country. The two are directly related.
  We must not have a direct policy in our Nation of not providing 
funding for the housing needs of our people, of our very poor people. I 
would love to say that every poor person in America is going to be able 
to go out and become a computer programmer. In my heart I do not 
believe that is the case. There are going to be people that this 
country has to take care of, and we have to find it within our souls, 
within our own compassion to say that is worth our investment.
  This will not break the budget of America. Nobody is suggesting that 
the United States does not have the resources to accomplish this. We 
can cut a little bit of corporate welfare that we so lavishly provide 
all the big corporations of our country, that we provide to all the B-2 
bombers and the F-22 and every other major weapon system that we say 
are so vital to our national security even though the cold war has 
ended.
  What we want to suggest in this amendment is that when the public 
housing authorities and HUD come in and tell us that they need $3.2 
billion for their operating subsidies and we are

[[Page H2236]]

only giving them $2.9 billion, and as the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
Mr. Frank, and others have indicated, we will then load up that $2.9 
billion with $65 million for this program or other millions of dollars 
for that program, the truth of the matter is we are stripping away the 
very capability of these housing authorities to serve the very people 
we are asking them to.
  So what do we do? We say to the housing authorities, well, that is 
OK. Since we are not giving you the money to be able to take care of 
the poor, you can just take in a few more of the richer poor people and 
you can jack up the rents on those you are taking in and, therefore, 
some more money will stick to your back pockets. We do not care what 
happened to the poor, because now we can say, oh, gosh, look at that; 
is that not a wonderfully beautiful public housing program? And, gee, 
we must have done a terrific job in the Congress of the United States 
because, boy, do we have great looking public housing.
  We will not do a darn bit to take care of the very poor.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts was allowed to 
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, we will not really take 
care of the poor, we are not going to take care of the homelessness. In 
fact, we will cut homeless people by 26 percent, we will cut the 
housing budget by 25 percent, and we will come in and nickel and dime 
them and scold them a few times and tell them a few more things to do 
with themselves, but we are sure as heck not going to give them any 
more money.
  And, boy, if somebody stands up on the House floor and suggests maybe 
we should be putting enough money in to actually take care of these 
people, we say, oh, they just want to throw money at all the problems, 
and throwing money at poverty is not going to solve it. Well, I want to 
say to the gentleman that if we want to make public housing work for 
the people of this country, we ought to provide the operating subsidies 
that HUD as well as the housing authorities suggest that they need in 
order to be able to survive. And we should provide the capital grants 
that are necessary not only to continue the existing public housing but 
to improve that public housing.
  If we do not put money into these projects, into these well run-down 
projects and help them rebuild themselves, how the heck will they ever 
actually get better? We have to put money into them. There have been 
very successful programs that have rebuilt these large public housing 
units, have created tenant ownership and done wonderful things. We need 
to provide the operating subsidies and the capital grants.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I was upstairs in my Rules office and I was listening 
to this debate while preparing a juvenile justice rule to bring to the 
floor here in a few minutes, but I was disturbed when I heard where 
this funding might come from, from the increases with the Kennedy 
amendment.
  As I read the amendment, it says the amendment to section 282 (1) and 
(2) would increase authorization levels for the capital fund from $2.5 
billion to $3.7 billion. Now, that is a $1.2 billion increase. And then 
it would, at the same time, increase the level of funding for operating 
subsidies from $2.9 billion to $3.2 billion. That is an increase of 
$300 million, as I am reading here.
  I would just say to my good friend from Massachusetts, I have for 
years fought for the decent funding for the Department of Veterans 
Affairs. It was my legislation which created it, took it from being the 
Veterans Administration to a full Department of Veterans Affairs 
because they were not being funded properly.
  At the same time, I wanted to try to create a separate subcommittee 
in the Committee on Appropriations so that the Department of Veterans 
Affairs would not be funded along with HUD and other independent 
agencies. The gentleman knows full well if this ever went through, a 
$1.2 billion increase in the capital fund and the increased level of 
funding for the operating subsidies, it would come directly out of the 
hides of veterans in this country. To me that is terribly, terribly 
irresponsible.
  Even the veterans hospitals in Massachusetts, as they are in New 
York, have been hit by a redistribution of funds, and the gentleman's 
hospitals in Boston and in Albany, N.Y., and down in Dutchess County 
have suffered. This would just exacerbate that problem.
  So the money comes out of one kitty, one 602(b) allocation, and we 
have to be very, very careful about where we take this money. This 
money will not come out of the defense budget, which is grossly 
underfunded. This will come directly out of Department of Veterans 
Affairs, HUD and Independent Agencies.
  The gentleman is not going to vote to take it out of the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield 
so I can explain to him where I am going to get the money?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first of all, the 
gentleman understands that I am the No. 2 ranking Democrat on the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and I would never stand for cutting the 
veterans programs. So I want to make sure the gentleman understands 
that. I have fought for them every year since I have been here.
  Second, with regards to the issue of how we get these funds, there 
have been no 602(b) allocation and, in fact, the 602(b) allocation is 
simply a sham. I would hope the gentleman would support me in an effort 
to make sure this body, as a Congress of the United States, begins to 
take back control from the appropriators. And instead of being able to 
not shift money from the accounts within the Veterans Affairs or the 
space station or the housing agency, let us go after, and the gentleman 
can join with me, and maybe we should knock a little bit of that B-2 
money out. What would the gentleman say to that? Knock a little of the 
F-22 out.

                              {time}  2030

  Then we ought to knock out a little of those corporate subsidies. We 
could do that if the gentleman supported me.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Reclaiming my time, I ask the gentleman to abide by the 
rules of the House, please.
  I do not know if the gentleman has gone to any recruiting offices 
around the country or in Massachusetts, but I have. I will tell the 
gentleman that right now, today, we are suffering because we are not 
getting a good cross-section of American young men and women enlisting 
in the military today. Why? Because they are worried about that career. 
We are going right back to the 1970's when the military families that 
we are serving were on food stamps, their pay grade was so low. We 
could not keep noncommissioned officers. We could not keep commissioned 
officers in the military because of what happened to our military 
budget.
  During the 1980's we went through something called peace through 
strength and we rebuilt the military, we rebuilt the benefits for these 
young men and women who are eventually going to become veterans, 
whether it was from a full career or just having served 3 or 4 years. 
But we are sliding back.
  I can tell the gentleman right now, the money is not going to come 
out of the defense budget. It is going to come out of that portion of 
the pie which is set aside for the Department of Veterans Affairs, HUD 
and independent agencies.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. We have got to think big, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. SOLOMON. That is why we ought to defeat the Kennedy amendment on 
behalf of the veterans of this Nation.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman urged my friend to abide by the rules. It 
is easy to abide by the rules when one can change them at will, as the 
gentleman can who is chairman of the Committee on Rules. I would also 
say I am disappointed in him.
  In the first place, he talked about those agencies which are grouped 
with HUD once the 602(b)s are there, and he said EPA and Veterans and 
HUD. Did

[[Page H2237]]

NASA slip his mind? Was that an unintentional error? I guess it must 
have been. NASA is one of those agencies. The gentleman left NASA out. 
Maybe he thought some people might think that a manned space shuttle is 
less important.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman ought to check the voting 
records. I voted to abolish NASA's Space Station program.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman may have voted to abolish 
it, but that does not entitle him to abolish it in his mind and act as 
if it was abolished. The fact is that the gentleman just said, if you 
give more money to HUD, it must come under the 602(b) process once an 
allocation is made from EPA or the Department of Veterans affairs. He 
left out NASA.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, I will not yield. I would say to the 
gentleman, as he said to the gentleman from Massachusetts, abide by the 
rules. I just heard someone say that.
  I would say to the gentleman that he unintentionally, I am sure, gave 
a very inaccurate picture. But even more important is this in this 
diversionary effort by the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I insist that the gentleman be good-natured and yield 
briefly.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would say to the gentleman I will not.
  The fact is that there has been no 602(b) allocation this year. The 
fact is that the gentleman from New York comes up here on the wholly 
inaccurate premise that this must come from HUD, VA, EPA or the 
unstated NASA, which he has implicitly abolished, but that assumes 
there has been a 602(b) allocation.
  Mr. SOLOMON. My good friend must yield.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman seems to have forgotten 
that his side forgot to do a budget this year. He not only forgot about 
NASA, he forgot to do a budget. There has been no 602(b) allocation, so 
his whole argument is nonsensical.
  What the gentleman from Massachusetts talked about is more money from 
HUD. The gentleman from New York said that must come from one of these 
other agencies, but there has not yet been the basic decision that 
allocates that money. In fact, if the gentleman's amendment were to 
pass, we could then have the appropriators or the Committee on the 
Budget give more money for the whole 602(b) issue. I have never seen an 
issue of less substance brought forward.
  I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to ask unanimous consent 
that I correct my remarks and include NASA.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would have to say to the gentleman that 
I only have 5 minutes.
  Mr. SOLOMON. And all the other independent agencies.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I have to say to the gentleman I only 
have 5 minutes. I do not have enough time for the gentleman to correct 
all his remarks.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I object, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to set the 
precedent because I do not have enough time to entertain all the 
corrections that would be entailed.
  The point is this, however. Money is denigrated whenever poor people 
are the recipients.
  The gentleman from New York just correctly said that it would be very 
unfortunate for the veterans if they lost money. I agree. One reason I 
am skeptical about this budget deal is that among the items that will 
be capped in the budget deal will be the discretionary money for 
veterans' health, and I am unhappy with that, and I have been in a few 
veterans' hospitals lately.
  When we talk about the military, the gentleman says we need more 
money. By the way, the gentleman from Massachusetts talked about 
cutting the B-2 bomber. I do not think that is a big recruiting item. 
We are told that we need more money for the Veterans Administration if 
we want to do better for veterans' health, and I agree. We are told we 
need more money for the military, if we think they are underfunded. I 
do not.
  How come it is only when we talk about benefiting the poor that money 
somehow becomes irrelevant? Money is not some objectified thing in 
itself. It is a claim on resources.
  What we are saying is a substantial part of the problem with public 
housing has been a lack of resources. The gentleman from New York said 
and the gentleman from Louisiana said there are housing authorities 
that are rotting; they have holes in the windows. Are we going to talk 
those holes away? Are we going to just give people counseling so that 
we fix heating systems?
  Yes, for a lot of reasons there are serious physical deterioration 
problems. We are saying to you that all of your self-sufficiency 
contracts and your 8-hour-a-month work requirements, like them or not, 
do nothing, nothing to deal with these ongoing serious physical 
structural problems. The gentleman from Massachusetts is talking 
seriously about them.
  To argue that you are going to transform, in fact, people on the 
majority side talk about public housing as this terrible, physically 
rotting sinkhole full of social problems, but somehow more money is 
irrelevant to dealing with them. It is the only context where poor 
people are the potential recipients where people on the other side are 
inclined to denigrate the value of money. When it comes to getting 
wealthy people to work hard, they need more money. When it comes to 
defending the country, we need more money. When it comes to health for 
veterans, we need more money. When it comes to fixing up the admittedly 
terrible conditions in much of public housing, money somehow becomes 
irrelevant.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I yield to the gentleman from New York if he so desires, if 
he has further clarification he would like to make.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, again my good friend from Massachusetts 
had said that somehow I left out NASA but I wanted to point out that I 
did in fact, when there was a vote on the floor about the space 
station, that I voted to eliminate it. I do not know how the gentleman 
voted, but I did so because we really did need that money for the 
veterans budget, that part of the 602(b) allocations.
  But there are other issues out there. We have a supplemental budget 
coming up before us in an appropriation bill sometime this week or next 
week, and in that is the continued funding for our troops in Bosnia.
  Those funds are going to come out of not somewhere else, they are 
going to come out of the defense budget. It is out of the operation and 
maintenance of the defense budget and the research and development that 
it gives our young men and women today the kind of state-of-the-art 
equipment that, God forbid if they ever have to go into a war, they are 
going to have. They are going to have night vision goggles so that they 
can see the enemy and the enemy cannot see them. Those are so terribly 
important. When you let the defense budget go down to what it has, you 
jeopardize that.
  I have got an amendment, as a matter of fact, to the supplemental 
appropriations bill that is going to say instead of taking this money 
out of the operation and maintenance, which means out of housing for 
these young men and women and their families, we are going to try to 
take it out of Nunn-Lugar. Do my colleagues know what that is? It pays 
for the dismantling of defense missile systems in a lot of the former 
Soviet bloc countries.
  Today, for instance, in Ukraine and Kazakhstan, those two countries 
have already been denuclearized, yet there is over $800 million in the 
pipeline for this money to be used. We are going to try to transfer 
that money from Nunn-Lugar and put it into paying for those troops in 
Bosnia, instead of taking it out of the operation and maintenance 
budget.
  These are the kind of things that we ought to be doing. We ought to 
be protecting our young men and women, we ought to be providing proper 
funding so that they can depend on a good, honorable career in the 
military, and there is

[[Page H2238]]

nothing more honorable. It is a lot more honorable career in the 
military than it is a career in the Congress. I wish I could have had a 
career in the military instead of in the Congress.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, some of us wish the 
gentleman had stayed in.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I tell the gentleman from Massachusetts that I will get 
into that later on.
  Mr. LEACH. If I could reclaim the time, I want to thank the gentleman 
from New York for his very thoughtful representation to this body as 
well as defense of the U.S. military and the veteran.
  I would only like to make one comment, because in all of this 
discussion about programmatic grouping, 601(b), 602(b), whatever it may 
be, the fact of the matter is, the greater relevance is how did the 
committee come up with the figure? And the figure in this budget is 
precisely, dollar for dollar the recommendation of the Clinton 
administration. This committee has worked vigorously and cooperatively 
with the administration on this housing budget.
  I make this point because the figure of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts is somewhat over 50 percent greater than the majority on 
the committee has recommended, which means it is 50 percent greater 
than the administration has requested. There are a lot of things we 
could do with more money in all sorts of Federal areas.
  I, personally, think maybe housing has been a little more short-
shrifted than I would like, but the fact of the matter is we are 
dealing with a budget dilemma. This committee has come up precisely 
with the administration request, and I know it does not fit all on your 
side of the aisle, but I would think the committee might well get some 
appreciation for how closely we have worked with the administration, 
how hard we have worked to defend a particular dollar level that is 
their request, and instead the amendments come in calling for 50 
percent increases. That makes it pretty difficult to deal with, because 
it is out of the scope of budget constraints, as we all recognize, and 
not just this discussion between the veterans' programs and the housing 
programs.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I did not exclude the 
Clinton administration from their culpability in this low number on 
housing allocations. What I wonder is if the gentleman might respond to 
the idea that the gentleman, as chairman of the Committee on Banking 
and Financial Services, as someone who has taken a great interest in 
housing policy over the years, would not in fact take the lead in 
trying to suggest that the Clinton administration as well as many 
others have not put enough money into this, and let us at least have 
the fight on the House floor. Instead of requiring this to be held on 
the Democratic side, why not come up with a budget that actually meets 
the needs? Does the gentleman really believe that the housing projects 
that are in such terrible shape can be brought up to code if they do 
not have more money?
  Mr. LEACH. First, let me respond to the gentleman. We have worked 
forthrightly to come up with the maximum approach we believe that could 
receive the majority's support in this body.
  Second, I do believe very firmly that there are few areas of Federal 
programming that have had more glaring mistakes in them than a number 
of our public housing projects. And I believe that without reform, more 
money is money down the proverbial difficult hole.
  All I can say is that from the majority's perspective, we have worked 
with the administration to come up with a credible number, with 
credible reform, and as we come to the floor, each amendment calls 
either for a return to the status quo or for money outside the budget 
constraints that have been worked out between the executive branch and 
Congress. It is in that context that I have a difficult time looking at 
some of these amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. Leach was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have to say to my friend 
with all sincerity, invoking the President is not an argument. Invoking 
the President, with whom you are free to disagree and disagree 
frequently, the fact that the gentleman coincide on this one, as the 
gentleman understands, is not an argument. It does not go to the 
merits.
  Second, I have to say I am sorry to hear the gentleman talk about, 
oh, it is going to be money down a rathole. In some few places, yes. 
Nobody here is contesting the strengthening of HUD's ability to take 
over housing projects. We are all for that. But I will tell the 
gentleman that I have been to many of the housing authorities in my 
district and elsewhere, and they are well run; they are not ratholes, 
and giving them more money is not pouring money down a rathole. The 
gentleman knows that.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I recapture my time because the gentleman 
from Iowa has the time.
  I would concur with the gentleman that many of these housing projects 
are very well run. I would like as a Member of Congress to be able to 
say ``I can double your funds.'' But the fact is we have a totality of 
constraints placed in this body. Working with the administration may 
not be an argument in the sense of substance but it is a process 
circumstance of enormous import to this body that everybody in this 
body recognizes.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. Chairman, what is being displayed on the floor today is an effort 
by a part of their wonderful political party that is saying we want to 
on this program increase substantially the resources as they argue on 
many other programs, and what the majority side is saying, that somehow 
there have to be limits when we are dealing with a totality of a budget 
of the nature we are dealing with.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman further 
yield?
  Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. But many of us have also talked about 
substantial reductions, the space station, the B-2 bomber, areas that 
we consider----
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, to recapture my time, because it is my time, 
I would acknowledge to the gentleman that with the gentleman from New 
York and the gentleman from Massachusetts I had the same vote on the 
man orbiting laboratory issue. I also object to the B-2 bomber. And so 
all of us as individual Members have different judgments, but we have 
to live within the constraints of what the majority determines as well 
as the constraints of the executive branch.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. Leach was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. We are in the process, we are in the 
process of trying to determine what the majority determines. The 
majority, until it has voted on this, has not spoken yet. But finally I 
have to say I understand the gentleman can feel beleaguered sometimes 
when he says he is getting no appreciation for supporting the 
administration. I think my colleagues have to adopt what Harry Truman 
said with regard to friendship:
  ``If you want appreciation in Washington, get a dog.''
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, my belief is that we are 
an authorizing committee, and as an authorizing committee it is not our 
responsibility to do the appropriations committees' work. We have a 
responsibility of telling the appropriators the funding levels that are 
necessary in

[[Page H2239]]

order to achieve the kind of public housing policy that we believe is 
the right policy. It is up to the appropriators to then come back and 
tell us that they do not have enough money to do this or that or the 
other thing, and we have that fight out, and that is the process that 
the forefathers of this country set out in how they establish the rules 
of the House.
  It seems to me that what has happened here is that we have allowed 
and that their side of the aisle has allowed the authorizing committees 
to simply be stifled. There is no debate between authorizers and 
appropriators any longer. This used to be a fight when the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] ran this committee. It was a fight, and he 
put in more money, and we go to the appropriators, and every member of 
this committee would go before the Committee on Appropriations and 
fight for the programs that we believed in. That is not existing any 
longer. It is just that they give us a number and our colleagues accept 
it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Leach was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, this gentleman does not accept the 
statements of the gentleman from Massachusetts. The fact of the matter 
is it is the responsibility of this committee to work realistically 
with the budget constraints that exist. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] knows very well, and I do not want to 
reference names, but in the past, bills were introduced in our 
committee with gigantic pie-in-the-sky numbers, and they never were 
credibly received in the appropriations process, and they should not 
have been.
  This committee is an authorizing committee, is requesting 
credibility. It is coming with numbers that we will be defending, 
numbers that will be accepted, numbers that are supported by the 
administration, numbers that have realistic relationships with other 
Federal programs in a budget constraint time, and this committee also 
is coming with philosophical reform.
  The combination of realistic numbers and realistic reform I think 
gives decent hope that public housing in America can be improved.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am having a little trouble following this debate 
because it sounds like everybody is saying the same thing, which is 
that we need more money. At least every once in a while I hear somebody 
on the other side acknowledge that we need more money, when they are 
running away from the notion that they are advancing that money will 
not solve the problem. And so that kind of has my head spinning. Maybe 
my head is spinning because it is so late tonight, but I keep hearing 
inconsistent philosophies from my colleagues here.
  We were talking about opening new slots for working people and public 
housing so that working people could rotate out of public housing, and 
so we went around in a circle on that issue, and then we were talking 
about we always want to do what the President does, but the truth of 
the matter is the President does not even support this bill and the 
President has asked for additional funding for this purpose and our 
authorizing committee will not even ask for additional funding, even 
though we all acknowledge that we need the additional funding if we are 
going to rehabilitate public housing. We were talking about more 
flexibility for local housing authorities, and yet the bill keeps 
dictating various requirements from the Federal Government on local 
housing authorities.
  So we are going around in circles that way, and now we are back here 
saying, hey, we are not going to ask for any more money because we are 
looking for credibility, and I do not know. What kind of credibility 
are we looking for? We got 16 million people out here that need 
housing, we got 4 million units, and nobody is saying we are going to 
build 12 million more housing units, but surely we need some more 
housing units and we need to rehabilitate the housing units that are 
not in good condition. And how are we going to do that if we on the 
authorizing committee do not take the fight and go to the appropriators 
and say we know we have got competing demands, we know we got budget 
constraints, but we need more money for housing in this country because 
we got 16 million housing families that need housing and we got only 4 
million units?
  We have got bad housing, which all of us acknowledge, and we need to 
rehabilitate it, and it seems to me that all of us on both sides have 
acknowledged that, and why Mr. Kennedy's amendment would not be deemed 
a reasonable and good idea in that context I simply do not understand.
  Maybe it is too late at night for me to understand. Maybe I have 
heard too many inconsistent rationales that I cannot understand.
  Would the gentleman like for me to yield the balance of my time to 
him? Maybe he can explain it to me.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
gentleman yielding. I think that the heart of this issue is where we 
believe our resources ought to be spent in this country. I understand 
that it is not popular to stand up for housing policy and for the 
homeless and to suggest that, if we even suggest that we want to put 
more money into homeless and housing issues, that we are going to be 
castigated as saying that we are maintaining the status quo, we are not 
willing to change. None of those things are true.
  If anybody bothers to read our bill and recognizes that we give broad 
powers to the Secretary to take back badly-run housing agencies, well-
run housing agencies that run badly run projects will also be taken 
back. We give broad powers, new powers at the local level, to accept 
many more working families to raise that to a 50/50 ratio over a period 
of 10 years.
  I think that the housing reforms that we have constituted require us 
to have the faith that if we invest the money in these buildings that 
we can get them up to code and provide decent and affordable housing 
for the Nation's poor and vulnerable people, and I appreciate all the 
work that the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] has done on this 
bill. He has done yeoman's work, and I am very proud to serve in the 
Congress with him.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if the subcommittee chairman would yield 
for a colloquy on some questions that I have with regard to this issue.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HILL. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, first of all perhaps I am not the only Member 
here that is a little bit confused about the issue of the 602 
allocation. As I understand, the funding, if we have an increase of 
funding in this area, that funding comes out of where? Would the 
gentleman from New York explain that for us?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Sure. There is something called the 602(b)s, 
and they are a cap on the money that each of the 13 appropriations 
bills can spend. The way the rules work are that we cannot take money 
from another 602(b) area to put it into a separate and distinct area.
  Now if I can illustrate that, that means that if we increase funding, 
in this case for a particular housing program, it must come from within 
that area that is under the jurisdiction of that particular 
appropriations subcommittee, and in that subcommittee we have 
environmental enforcement, veterans benefits and veterans affairs, NASA 
and housing; those are the main areas. And so as we increase one; for 
example, if we were to adopt this amendment and the effect of it would 
be to increase funding in one part of housing, the offset might be to 
get rid of home ownership programs also for people of low income. The 
offset might also be to deny health benefits for veterans, to 
illustrate a point. It might be to eliminate a NASA program or an EPA 
program. It could not be, under the rules, the budget rules that exist 
in this House, we could not go out and take money away from the defense 
budget. That is not the way the rules work.

[[Page H2240]]

  Mr. HILL. Now as I understand it, some of these public housing 
authorities have capital funds that have not been spent. Am I correct 
that some of these are the public housing administrations that have 
some of the poorest housing? Is that correct?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. The gentleman is absolutely correct. As a 
matter of fact, last year we had in America housing authorities that 
did not spend in excess of $900 million in their capital account, and 
in several cases there were tens of millions of dollars that were left 
unspent by the worst housing authorities in the country. So while 
people were living in squalor, they were sitting on money.
  The idea that money alone will fix the problem is wrong, it is not 
factual, and the fact that we need to create environments where 
competitive forces reign, where we demand levels of excellence in terms 
of management and we begin to change and transform the community so 
that working people can achieve their American dream and people who are 
unemployed can also follow that American dream.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, this bill is intended to create greater 
responsibility on the part of a lot of folks that are involved in 
public housing. We have talked some about the work requirement, if my 
colleague will, the community service requirement, which is an effort 
to create greater responsibility on the part of residents, and our goal 
here, as I understand it, is that by their involvement in those 
communities it will strengthen those communities.
  This section of the bill is intended to create greater responsibility 
in terms of the public housing administrators; is that not correct?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, in that sense we are giving more 
money to the public housing administrators to administer the programs. 
They can use it in many different ways, but getting back to the core 
issue, if we had an unlimited amount of money, I would suggest that 
virtually every Member in this Chamber would look to see if we could 
increase spending in some way to ensure that we get better housing.
  But not every solution to help house and provide better opportunities 
for the very poor and for the working poor involves funding housing 
authorities. Some of it involves exploring home ownership options, some 
of it means working with not for profits like Habitat For Humanity 
which we have been involved in, and when we do this in a way in which 
we deal with our budget, meaning we have limited money and we have to 
have offsets, we are taking from one of those areas and we are 
prioritizing, and we are saying that area is not as valid in terms of 
our spending increases as this one, and we are fully funding the 
President's request in this case.
  As a matter of fact, I would say to the gentleman, there have been 
cases in which I have been on the floor to ask for amounts over and 
above the President's request when the administration put forward a 
budget that would reduce funding for seniors, for senior housing, or 
when the administration put forward a request to cut housing for people 
who are disabled. I offered the amendments, and this House followed 
suit, and I am grateful to that to restore that funding.

                             {time}   2100

  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 more 
minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Montana?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would not have 
objected, because everybody else has been willing, if the gentleman who 
just had the time would acknowledge the fact that I am trying to get 
his attention.
  Mr. Chairman, I would have been happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Montana [Mr. Hill] and given the gentleman more time, but the gentleman 
would never yield to me; no matter how many times I requested the 
gentleman to yield, he never yielded to me.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I was engaged in a colloquy and at the end of 
that colloquy I would have been more than happy to yield to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], and had the gentleman 
appropriately waited until the end, I would have done so.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield 
to the gentleman from Montana now.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  I have one last question.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thought the gentleman 
was going to yield back to me.
  In any event, let me reclaim my time briefly, Mr. Chairman, and if 
the gentleman from Montana has a question of me, I will be happy to 
yield to him.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, and then the gentleman will not object if I 
want another minute.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. No, I will not.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a very different way of thinking about this 
budget than the one that was just articulated between the two Members 
on the other side of the aisle. The truth of the matter is that there 
is no 602(b) allocation. We are not constrained within any number at 
this time. This is prior to when that entire procedure gets underway. 
Right now, we can come in and request whatever numbers we want. The 
appropriators are going to have to come in, and the Committee on the 
Budget is going to have to come up with what they feel is appropriate 
for us.
  We can have fights about what we believe, whether or not the space 
station ought to be built; the space station would pay for these 
programs.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues on the other side, if they read their own 
bill they will find, and we support the idea, that the funding that is 
contained, that is not unspent by housing authorities goes back to HUD 
and can be reallocated.
  So yes, I am not trying to suggest that poorly run housing 
authorities ought to be able to continue to get this money. What we are 
trying to suggest is that we are not going to solve the problem of 
badly run housing projects unless we in fact give some more money to 
the people, in addition to the fact that we get a better income mix in 
those buildings.
  We have a basic responsibility as authorizers to tell the 
appropriators that they do not just take a marching order from the 
Speaker of the House when he says, listen, here is the number, so then 
the chairman of the committee and the chairman of the subcommittee go, 
oh, OK, that is a realistic number, so therefore, we ought to take it.
  I object when the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] said earlier that 
we put big numbers up. Yes, there were some of us on the committee that 
feel we should put a lot more money into housing. Those bills were what 
I would call flagship bills. We never expected to get those bills that 
put $50 billion into housing. But, my goodness, we certainly expected 
to have the fight with the appropriators, and the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Gonzalez] would put in at $38 billion levels all the years that I 
have served on the housing committee, since I first got here.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, first, a correction for the gentleman. We 
are in a world which everyone that has a point wants to identify the 
Speaker. I have not spoken to the Speaker on this issue. I have spoken 
to Secretary Cuomo. We have put in the administration-requested 
numbers.
  The second point I would like to make, the gentleman is absolutely 
right. The former chairman of this committee put in higher numbers, but 
they have not gotten them. We are putting in numbers and we intend to 
get them.
  The chairman of the subcommittee and I have fought very vigorously 
within the Republican caucus to insist that

[[Page H2241]]

public housing programs not be eliminated, and we have made a major 
personal time commitment. And I would say particularly the chairman of 
this subcommittee, and must tell the gentleman from Massachusetts that 
the implications of his words that the majority leadership and the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services refuses to go and support 
the committee, unlike prior leadership of the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services, is invalid.
  Beyond that, I know of no committee at any time in this body that has 
not cooperated more with the department of jurisdiction on the area 
under control, controlled by another political party.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would point out that the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] controls the time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me yield to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and subsequently to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-
Lee] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas was allowed to 
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. The chairman of the committee, who I 
have great respect for and recognize the independence that he brings to 
his job, but it is also true that under the leadership that he has 
served as chairman of the committee we have seen the most precipitous 
drop in the history of housing. We went from $28 billion to $20 billion 
overnight without a single hearing, without ever debating this issue 
whatsoever, and that is what happened, and that is the real record.
  I do not care to condemn my friend from Iowa, because I know that he 
had very little to do with that particular policy, but that is the 
record of what has occurred while the gentleman has been chairman of 
this committee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield 
to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], and I would also like 
to yield to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] if the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Watt] would make his point.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to make my point 
quick, because I made this point in committee.
  I do not doubt at all that our chairman has fought within the 
Republican Caucus for what we are talking about, but I do not know why 
we would not as a committee go on record in support of the Kennedy 
amendment that allows bipartisan support for this, both Republicans and 
Democrats. The gentleman from Iowa should not be fighting this battle 
in only the Republican Caucus. We should be taking this battle to the 
full House, and we should be doing it together. That is what I said 
earlier, everybody is saying the same thing, everybody agrees we need 
this money, and both sides ought to be saying it together, not just in 
a Republican Caucus.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-
Lee] has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas was allowed to 
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Leach] so that he may respond.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, let me respond in context, one is the 
context of restraint, the second is in the context of housing.
  In the context of restraint, this committee has brought forth the 
administration's proposal. This side is marching in what might be 
considered surprising lockstep with the administration; the Democrat 
side is not.
  The second point I would like to make that I think is very important, 
housing is a large issue, public housing is a subset issue. It is the 
belief philosophically of the Republican side that if we can constrain 
spending, reduce interest rates, we can expand housing in America. That 
is occurring. A higher percentage of Americans each year now are coming 
to own their own homes, putting a lower burden on the public side.
  Now, we can take every single subset of Federal programs and make a 
case for increasing them. When we do that, the sum total of effect is 
an economy that dwindles. We on the Republican side are very conscious 
of the macroeconomic dimension of the need to restrain. Based on that, 
of all programs in America where the benefits become most clear-cut, it 
is housing. Homeownership in this country as a percentage is going up, 
and we are committed to continue to have that go up.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 
to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to 
point out that we have discussed the defense bill now and it sounds 
like we are back to supply-side economics.
  The truth of the matter is I am in favor of a balanced budget. There 
is plenty of money in this budget, we just have to find out where we 
have to go spend it. All I am asking, all the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Watt] is asking, all the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. 
Jackson-Lee] is asking is that we go out and fight for money for the 
housing bill. Why go out and allow everybody else to grab the money? Go 
out and grab it with us, and we will help.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  The amendment was rejected.


          Amendment No. 31 Offered by Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer Amendment No. 31.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 31 offered by Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas: Page 
     120, line 2, strike ``and''.
       Page 120, line 23, strike the period and insert a 
     semicolon.
       Page 120, after line 23, insert the following:
       (3) in subsections (c)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(A), by striking 
     ``make their best efforts,'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``to the maximum extent that is possible and'';
       (4) in subsection (c)(1)(A), by striking ``to give'' and 
     inserting ``give''; and
       (5) in subsection (d)(1)(A), by striking ``to award'' and 
     inserting ``award''.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me acknowledge the 
leadership of the Chairman and ranking member on a very difficult 
process and a difficult piece of legislation with varying perspectives, 
and I have offered my own perspective on issues involving a large 
number of my constituents who are in public housing or assisted 
housing. Houston is the fourth largest city in the Nation. 
Interestingly enough, as a southern city, we confront many of the ills 
that we see our eastern and northern counterpart cities facing.
  I rise to offer an amendment that I believe can move forward in a 
bipartisan manner, and that is to alter the language that would mandate 
public housing authorities, their contractors and subcontractors, to be 
considered or to consider employing residents on projects funded with 
HUD dollars.
  This will open up the widest range of job opportunities for residents 
and would be advantageous to the national economy. Again, let me 
emphasize that the language is to be considered, it is not a mandate to 
hire.
  According to the National Public Housing Authority, there are many 
public housing residents who are looking for employment. This amendment 
addresses the job scarcity that affects many residents of public 
housing.
  In fact, I was in a discussion some weeks ago where, going through my 
public housing developments, their main question is, where is the work? 
We would like to work. I think my counterparts throughout the Nation 
have heard the very same request.
  We have checked on this particular amendment and it has no CBO 
impact. It is a cooperative amendment. It has the contractors, the 
businesses, the housing authority, the residents, working together.
  This amendment will not only provide jobs for residents of public 
housing, it will increase moneys paid in rent to the housing 
authorities which assess rent schedules by the annual income of the 
residents. This amendment will also drive down the number of 
individuals who earn salaries below the

[[Page H2242]]

average area mean. It will train young people in the housing 
developments. It will get families having a sense of pride and dignity 
as they work, to construct, to rehabilitate, to clean up, to landscape 
the areas of their housing and where they live. This will have a 
positive impact for public housing authorities, the Federal Government 
and the national economy.
  Might I say that in my discussions with some of the contracting 
businesses, this is a positive for them. It is a positive for the 
unions. In fact, I might say that the unions have offered and wanted us 
to do more on job training in the housing developments so they could 
get more apprenticeships and have the individuals who live there, male 
and female, learn the building trades or learn landscaping.
  So this is an amendment that says, let us make sure that those 
individuals who want to work, who live in housing developments, are 
considered for these very precious jobs.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I want to compliment the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] and 
announce that I am going to be supporting this amendment. I want to 
compliment the gentlewoman for her vision in terms of putting this 
amendment forward.
  This amendment really does very much speak to one of the essential 
themes of this bill, which is to help recycle dollars, help to provide 
new opportunities for tenants, help to build skills; help to give 
people the kind of environment, even if they are of lower income, where 
they can transition back into the mainstream economy.
  This amendment will help do that, I believe. I believe this sends a 
strong message out to public housing authorities throughout the country 
that this should be part of their mission, that they ought to be paying 
attention to their tenants, that they ought to be helping them build 
skills and they ought to be employing them, wherever possible.
  So for these reasons, I am appreciative of the gentlewoman's 
amendment. I am happy to lend it my support, and I want to compliment 
her for the way she has handled it.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that sometimes we get involved in 
rhetorical debates. What the gentlewoman's amendment does is something 
that is very close to the self-sufficiency efforts that are underway as 
well, and I think it makes a great deal of common sense, as I think 
self-sufficiency efforts make a great deal of common sense, but this 
side does have to recognize that it is a slightly greater burden on the 
public housing authorities, but it is a burden worth putting on the 
public housing authorities.

                              {time}  2115

  That was the same point we were trying to make earlier with the self-
sufficiency approaches. This tightens that up. It is complementary. It 
makes great sense.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
willingness to support this. We have disagreed on the self-sufficiency, 
but I really appreciate the fact that the gentleman realizes I am at a 
different level, but we are on common ground. That is that this gives 
dignity and self-esteem, but it also gives the ability for those 
individuals to get valuable training, job skills, that may be parlayed 
even beyond these contracts. I appreciate the housing authorities being 
willing to at least let those applicants, those residents, get to those 
potential employers and see what happens.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  The amendment was agreed to.


             amendment offered by ms. jackson-lee of texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a 
substitute for amendment No. 50.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas: Page 152, 
     line 2, strike ``and''.
       Page 152, line 6, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 152, after line 6, insert the following:
       (7) how the agency will comply with the requirement under 
     subsection (k)(3), if applicable.
       Page 153, after line 15, insert the following:
       (3) Replacement requirement for pha's in areas with public 
     housing shortages.--
       (A) In general.--In the case only of public housing 
     agencies described in subparagraph (B), such an agency may 
     demolish or dispose of a public housing development (or 
     portion of a development) only if the agency provides to the 
     maximum extent that is possible an additional safe, clean, 
     healthy, and affordable dwelling unit for each public housing 
     dwelling unit to be demolished or disposed of. Such 
     additional dwelling units may be provided for through 
     acquisition or development of additional public housing 
     dwelling units or as provided under paragraph (1).
       (B) Covered pha's.--A public housing agency described in 
     this subparagraph is an agency whose jurisdiction includes 
     any area within a metropolitan statistical area for which--
       (i) the number of public housing dwelling units is less 
     than 5,000 dwelling units.

  Mr. LAZIO of New York (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 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me, as I am presenting 
this amendment, say to the ranking member, I thank him for the 
discussions that we have had on this very important issue. If I may, to 
the ranking member, just for a moment, I am not going to ask him to 
comment right now, but I would like to lay this out. We have had some 
very good discussions, and I would like to lay this amendment out and 
enter subsequently into a colloquy on this issue dealing with a very 
special problem that I have seen not only in communities like Houston, 
but in communities around the Nation, if I might.
  Mr. Chairman, I recognize that for a long period of time the 
leadership dealing with the housing issues have looked at this question 
called one-for-one replacement. I recognize that many of our major 
cities with large public housing agencies, with dwelling units over the 
10,000, 25,000, 50,000 level, have faced consternation regarding the 
question of lack of flexibility in reevaluating how best to serve those 
who need public housing.
  Let me highlight that Houston and communities that have a small 
number of public housing dwelling units face a dissimilar problem or a 
problem that is very distinct and unique. That is, for example, Houston 
is a city with over 1.5 million, comparable to other cities around the 
Nation, but also equal to some of the problems that our rural 
communities have with respect to housing. In many instances, they have 
not had the necessity to demolish large numbers of units, or have the 
situation where they have units over 10,000.
  In our community in particular, we had a certain housing structure 
that became the symbol for what happens when individuals believe that 
we cannot demolish and be constructive and go forward. It happens that 
Allen Parkway Village now has been partly demolished. There is an 
effort to rehabilitate a certain number of units and an effort now to 
replace a certain number of units.
  The amendment that I offered was really a discretionary amendment. It 
simply said that if a particular community had less than 5,000 units 
and was planning on demolishing, they should make every maximum effort 
to provide healthy, clean, affordable public housing dwelling units, 
recognizing that this might help many of our rural communities, give 
them an incentive, if you will, to replace the housing units for those 
who most need it.
  In my community we are presently looking at trying to replace the 
units for Allen Parkway Village. The difficulty is that now all of a 
sudden the properties around Allen Parkway Village have become 
lucrative for developers, and there is a falling back, if you will, a 
reneging, on the replacing of housing for my constituents and 
constituents who need it.
  What I would simply offer to say, Mr. Chairman, is that I would hope, 
both with the ranking member and of course with the chairman, that we 
could work through this issue and determine that what we need most in 
the U.S. Congress is to assure affordable, clean, healthy housing for 
those who need public housing. Where there is a demolishing, if we can 
have a discussion that

[[Page H2243]]

makes sure that we do not go backward, but we go forward; that we 
enable, if you will, the individuals who need public housing to have 
good, clean public housing.
  I would like to yield to the gentleman, because I am offering to 
withdraw this particular amendment, even as it has been softened, to be 
able to work further on the generic problem, and the generic problem is 
trying to get housing in communities that do not have 50,000 units, 
25,000 units, 10,000 units or 5,000 units, but have under that, and 
through demolishing have lost the ability to serve those communities 
and individuals in those communities.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Texas. I appreciate the spirit with which we have been entering into 
discussions on the part of the gentlewoman. She has offered, and I 
appreciate that, to continue speaking with me and with members of my 
staff, the committee staff, rather, to ensure that we try and meet the 
needs of low-income people in terms of housing in rural areas. I 
understand that there is an equal need for housing in rural areas, and 
that we need to look to new tools to try and enhance what we have right 
now.
  With respect to the gentlewoman's particular amendment, we are going 
to take a look at it, because we have no hearing record. I want to make 
sure that I understand the implications and consequences of the 
amendment, and then I hope we will have several different discussions 
about this, to see if we can explore some ways of trying to meet on 
mutual concerns to try and deliver more and better housing for low-
income people in rural areas.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-
Lee] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas was allowed to 
proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I was 
hoping we could work in tandem and look at this issue so it could be 
represented in conference that there is a problem, not only with rural 
areas, I mentioned that, but cities that are not cities that have 
larger than 5,000 units.
  In my instance, Houston is probably representative of some other 
cities that have less than that, or 2,500 units, who may have some 
problems on the replacement, and need to have that incentive to do so 
for those individuals.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following Members be permitted to offer their amendments to title II, 
even after the reading has progressed beyond that title. That would be 
Mr. MORAN, printed amendment No. 51; the gentlewoman from New York, 
[Ms. Velazquez], printed amendment No. 43. That would preserve their 
rights to offer their amendments tomorrow.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment of the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. DeLay], also be protected, 
which is a correlary or related to the amendment of Mr. Moran, and that 
he be permitted to offer his amendment to title II even after the 
reading has progressed beyond that title.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, the Klink-Doyle amendment will provide the 
general public with a simple practical protection from overzealous 
bureaucratic decisionmaking. It amends the local cooperation provision 
of section 202 of the bill to ensure that public housing authorities 
notify and consult with potentially impacted local governments when 
initiating new public housing programs, including those which stem from 
an order, judgment, or decree of any court.
  Current law does contain limited notification requirements, and H.R. 
2 improves on these stipulations. Some might assume that such 
provisions are adequate to guarantee that communities receive expedient 
notification and consultation. However, based on experiences in 
Allegheny County, PA and in cities across the country, we feel that the 
clarification provided by this amendment is essential.
  For 2 years now, the citizens of Allegheny County have been working 
to comply with the provisions of a consent decree designed to 
redistribute public housing throughout the county. As HUD and the 
housing authority began to implement the decree, towns and boroughs 
were often treated as if their interests and input were unnecessary and 
unwanted. Thousands of citizens and numerous councils of government 
were outraged by their nearly total exclusion from any part of the 
decisionmaking process.
  To address this situation, I brought local officials in Allegheny 
County together into an intermunicipal working group. This group has 
come to stand together and demand the notification that the people 
deserve. Many citizens and elected officials in this group have worked 
tirelessly and have had some success in bringing more openness to the 
implementation process. Unfortunately, our extraordinary efforts have 
not been enough. The people need the force of law to guarantee that, at 
a bare minimum, public housing authorities will keep them apprised of 
their activities.
  Usually, when a housing authority seeks funding from HUD for a new 
public housing initiative, they must gain some degree of local 
approval. However, because funding for compliance with a consent decree 
does not come through normal HUD channels, notification requirements do 
not have to be adhered to. In other words, housing authorities can and 
do legally turn a blind eye to local interests. Mr. Chairman, I believe 
that this is clearly a loophole which needs to be closed.
  Regardless if a public housing initiative is the result of a 
bureaucratic decision or a judicial decree, the public should have the 
right to review proposals which will affect their communities. A 
judicial mandate should not provide a license to ignore the rights of 
citizens, or be used as a justification to avoid public scrutiny. We 
must insist these decisions and debates are taking place in the light 
of day, not behind closed doors, and this amendment does simply that. 
It guarantees the public's right to know. I thank the Committee for 
agreeing to include Amendment No. 47 in the en bloc amendment which was 
earlier today approved by voice vote.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Jenkins) having assumed the chair, Mr. Goodlatte, chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill, H.R. 2, to 
repeal the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, deregulate the public housing 
program and the program for rental housing assistance for low-income 
families, and increase community control over such programs, and for 
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________