[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 58 (Wednesday, May 7, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2265-H2281]
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}  1217


                     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. Combest 
(Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Tuesday, May 6, 1997, the amendment by the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. 
Jackson-Lee] had been disposed of and title II was open for amendment 
at any point.
  Pursuant to the order of the Committee of that day, the following 
Members may offer their amendments to title II even after the reading 
has progressed beyond that title:
  Amendment No. 51 by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran];
  Amendment No. 43 by the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez]; 
and
  Amendment No. 2 by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].


         amendment no. 5 offered by mr. frank of massachusetts

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
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 voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate 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 
     of 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.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 172, 
noes 252, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 106]

                               AYES--172

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

                               NOES--252

     Ackerman
     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
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     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
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin

[[Page H2266]]


     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
  


                             NOT VOTING--9

     Andrews
     Becerra
     Clay
     DeFazio
     Edwards
     Gutierrez
     Kaptur
     Reyes
     Schiff

                              {time}  1235

  Ms. SANCHEZ and Mr. SNYDER changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I missed rollcall votes 105 
and 106. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on both votes.


          Amendment No. 30 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Combest). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 30 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 99, strike line 12 and all that follows through line 
     25 on page 99, and insert the following:

     SEC. 223. PREFERENCES FOR OCCUPANCY.

       (a) In General.--Except for projects or portions of 
     projects designated for occupancy pursuant to section 227 
     with respect to which the Secretary has determined that 
     application of this section would result in excessive delays 
     in meeting the housing needs of such families, each public 
     housing agency shall establish a system for making dwelling 
     units in public housing available for occupancy that--
       (1) for not less than 50 percent of the units that are made 
     available for occupancy in a given fiscal year, gives 
     preference to families that occupy substandard housing 
     (including families that are homeless or living in a shelter 
     for homeless families), are paying more than 50 percent of 
     family income for rent, or are involuntarily displaced 
     (including displacement because of disposition of a 
     multifamily housing project under section 203 of the Housing 
     and Community Development Amendments of 1978) at the same 
     time they are seeking assistance under this Act; and
       (2) for any remaining units to be made available for 
     occupancy, gives preference in accordance with a system of 
     preferences established by the public housing agency in 
     writing and after public hearing to respond to local housing 
     needs and priorities, which may include--
       (A) assisting very low-income families who either reside in 
     transitional housing assisted under title IV of the Stewart 
     B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, or participate in a 
     program designed to provide public assistance recipients with 
     greater access to employment and educational opportunities;
       (B) assisting families identified by local public agencies 
     involved in providing for the welfare of children as having a 
     lack of adequate housing that is a primary factor in the 
     imminent placement of a child in foster care, or in 
     preventing the discharge of a child from foster care and 
     reunification with his or her family;
       (C) assisting youth, upon discharge from foster care, in 
     cases in which return to the family or extended family or 
     adoption is not available;
       (D) assisting families that include one or more adult 
     members who are employed; and
       (E) achieving other objectives of national housing policy 
     as affirmed by the Congress.
       Page 100, line (1) strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(b)''.
       Page 100, line 4, after ``preferences'' insert ``under 
     subsection (a)(2)''.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me say, although I 
appreciate very much some of the common ground that the chairman and 
ranking member have shared and supported amendments that I have offered 
regarding job training and jobs, allow me to say that the general 
direction of this particular legislation regarding housing I have a 
great disagreement with, as many of my friends and associates on this 
side of the aisle. One of the ones is the effort behind this particular 
amendment which has to do with keeping in the Federal preferences 
dealing with housing particularly for the poorest of the poor and 
homeless.
  I recognize that we are looking at this issue from different colored 
glasses, but might I just share with colleagues that in Houston alone 
in October 1996 the University of Houston Center for Public Policy 
indicates that there are 9,216 homeless persons. It also showed in the 
Houston office of the Veterans' Administration that there were 9,216 
individuals who are homeless, 3,500 were homeless veterans. New York 
City alone has 100,000 homeless families on any given night. The 
National Coalition for the Homeless cites that 7 million families were 
identified as homeless.
  Therefore, my issue is that we must have a housing system that not 
only appeals to our working families, affordable housing, but it also 
responds to those individuals who need quality housing who are the 
poorest of the poor. It is my sense that Federal preferences heretofore 
had done that, allowing for local authorities to be able to address 
themselves to the disabled, senior citizens and as well the homeless. 
That is the reason as well why I spoke earlier this week on the 
question of one-for-one replacement, not to talk about the issues in 
Chicago or New York or California but to talk about the issues in 
cities like Houston and rural communities where the one-for-one 
replacement is still needed because of the low number of public housing 
dwelling units for the poorest of the poor, homeless individuals as 
well as veterans as well as the working very poor.
  I would ask the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] if he 
would, because this issue is so very important, HUD statistics show 
there is a 40-year wait for public housing in New York, a 12-year wait 
for public housing in Chicago, a 22-year wait in Philadelphia, a 20-
year wait in Dade County, FL, and in my city alone, a large number of 
individuals, some 20,000, on the waiting list. I would like to see us 
work through this issue.
  I will be withdrawing this amendment but not withdrawing my pain and 
my concern that the least of those, the most vulnerable, need housing.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] to engage in a colloquy to try and work through this issue.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. First of all, let me thank the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] for the efforts she is making 
on behalf of the constituents which she represents and with regard to 
constituencies outside of her congressional district who also are 
suffering as a result of not enough affordable housing being made 
available in the Houston area.
  This is a problem that is not just unique to Houston. The truth is 
that, if we look at what the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] 
is attempting to do, her efforts are stymied largely because we simply 
do not have enough resources in this bill to begin to build any new 
units of affordable housing. This bill in a tragic sense, I think, 
indicts the housing policies of this country. Despite the fact that the 
largest single growing portion of our population is the poorest of the 
poor in the United States of America, this bill does not contain 
funding for a single new housing unit. And so when we get into very 
tight communities such as the Houston market, where there is very 
little affordable housing stock, and since we have gotten rid of the 
one-for-one requirement, the one-for-one requirement means, if we are 
going to take a housing unit out of circulation, that we have to 
replace it with a new housing unit so that we do not lose the total 
number of units available to a local community.
  While that was a positive development for many years, because of the 
lower funding levels, it meant that we found many housing projects 
throughout the country where we found boarded-up projects because the 
local housing authority was no longer able to afford to build a whole 
new housing project, and so they would have to keep the old housing 
projects in existence. It is a terrible dilemma.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-
Lee] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts, and by unanimous 
consent, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion what I 
would suggest to the gentlewoman from Texas is that she has done some 
fine work on this issue. She adds to the debate and she has, I think, 
brought to the floor the issue of the downside risk of the repeal of 
the one-for-one requirement.
  I think that there are some provisions we have included in the bill 
that can provide some assistance in terms of mixed income housing with 
an amendment that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] was willing 
to accept

[[Page H2267]]

in the committee. But I do believe that this is not going to completely 
suffice a housing market such as the Houston market. I look forward to 
working with the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], and I hope 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], if the chairman would just 
acknowledge for one moment, that in housing markets such as the Houston 
market, the repeal of one-for-one, while desirable as a national 
policy, can create difficulties in specific marketplaces where we 
simply do not have enough housing units to meet the needs of the very 
poor.
  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 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. In conclusion, I would like to suggest 
that I think that this is an issue that the gentleman from New York, 
the chairman, has shown, while a commitment to the repeal of one-for-
one, a recognition that this is going to have some anomalies in terms 
of how this is going to affect specific communities.
  I am sure the chairman of the committee as well as the ranking member 
would like to work with the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] to 
try to address the specific concerns of the Houston community.

                              {time}  1245

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and I thank the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Lazio] for what he is about to respond, and hoping that we can 
work through conference on this issue.
  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, let me just comment that in fact 
there is no doubt that we need to look to new tools to develop 
additional units of housing, affordable housing, wherever we can. That 
is really the intent of H.R. 2. Within H.R. 2 we are allowing for those 
buildings that are under considerable physical stress, where they 
really are in deep need of modernization and would otherwise be torn 
down that the tenants at least be given vouchers so they would be able 
to use over and above what we have right now, incremental vouchers, new 
vouchers, so that people can go out there and use them to search for 
housing.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] for his leadership, and I know that one-
for-one replacement is something we will keep working on for those 
kinds of communities. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] very much for his leadership.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. 
Jackson-Lee] withdrawing her amendment?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas 
[Ms. Jackson-Lee] is withdrawn.


                  Amendments Offered By Ms. Velazquez

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, and I ask 
unanimous consent that amendments 43 and 44, as modified, be considered 
en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments offered by Ms. Velazquez:
       Page 104, lines 12 and 13, strike ``not less than $25 nor 
     more than $50'' and insert ``not more than $25''.
       Page 193, strike lines 4 and 5 and insert the following:
       (B) shall be not more than $25; and

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendments be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New York?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I 
ask unanimous consent, and I understand that the gentlewoman's staff 
and our staff have been working together to try and provide some 
parameters for time, and that there has been a tentative agreement that 
we would set the time limit at 30 minutes equally divided, half of that 
controlled by the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez] and half 
controlled by myself; and I make that unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. Chairman, I do this for the purpose of assuring that we have this 
time limitation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York may inquire, but we can 
only dispose of one unanimous-consent request at a time.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, then I reserve the right to 
object at this point.
  Mr. Chairman, if I could just make an inquiry of the gentlewoman from 
New York?
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the gentleman's reservation of objection the 
gentleman may inquire of the other side anything he needs to know to 
determine whether or not he will object.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. If I can inquire of the gentlewoman if that 
correctly reflects her understanding, that we can have a time 
limitation of 30 minutes, 15 minutes controlled by either side, 15 
minutes controlled by myself, 15 minutes controlled by the gentlewoman 
from New York in order to consider her en bloc application, and I am 
wondering if that meets with the gentlewoman's approval?
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would not 
object to the unanimous consent request.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent then, to 
ensure that there is time limitation on the en bloc amendment of 30 
minutes, that 15 minutes be controlled by the gentlewoman from New York 
[Ms. Velazquez] and 15 minutes controlled by myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. And on all amendments thereto; is that correct?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. On all amendments thereto; yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, once again we are debating a housing bill that is an 
insult to poor families. Instead of truly helping people move into the 
work force, this bill includes provisions that threaten a very basic 
and human need, access to safe affordable and clean housing. If we are 
really going to help families climb out of poverty and into lives of 
dignity, decency, and safety, they must have a fair chance to succeed.
  Across America millions of households pay more than half of their 
income on rent. H.R. 2 adds to the burden on the poorest families by 
raising minimum rents to between $25 to $50. Fifty dollars may not seem 
like much, but it may force the very, very poor to choose between food 
and shelter.
  By limiting the minimum rents to no more than $25, my amendment 
provides a basic protection for the most disadvantaged Americans. It is 
the final safety net for families that have suddenly fallen on 
extremely hard times. I strongly urge the adoption of these provisions.
  My colleagues, families that live in public housing are willing to 
pay rent. But, consider the 300,000 households who are protected by my 
proposal. They live in absolute poverty. They are parents who have lost 
their jobs or have to pay unexpected medical expenses. They are 
families climbing out of homelessness.
  The chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity 
often points out that H.R. 2 includes exemptions for some families. 
Yet, consider the context. First, the Republican Congress cuts PHA 
budget to the bone and now they want to force PHA's to grant exemption, 
exemptions that work against their own financial interests.
  As if this was not bad enough, H.R. 2 forces struggling families to 
jump through intimidating, bureaucratic hoops to get hardship waivers. 
That is

[[Page H2268]]

not a helping hand. That is harassment.
  My colleagues, if this legislation passes, it will create an 
underclass of people that cannot even afford public housing. Worst of 
all, with 600,000 people already pushed into homelessness by Republican 
budget cuts and shortages of homeless shelters, the poorest of the poor 
will have no place to turn. For a country that prides itself on the 
American dream, we cannot allow this to happen.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Baker].
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding this time 
to me. This of course is another important amendment aimed at limiting 
the important reforms that Chairman Lazio and the Republicans are 
proposing with regard to the utilization of public housing.
  What has been previously agreed to is that if an individual leaves 
public housing and gets employment, that the person who makes more 
money will be able to keep it under the provisions of this bill. Under 
the old system, which the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] was 
attempting to adopt earlier with an amendment rejected by the House, as 
the person's income would go up, so concurrently would the amount of 
rent paid, which is certainly not an incentive for a family struggling 
to go out and try to find additional work for the family to make 
additional income when the rent increase takes away the extra benefit 
of that effort.
  This amendment would then reach inside the housing authority's 
discretion and say that the maximum rent someone could be required to 
pay in a hardship circumstance would be $25 down to zero, so that we 
are attempting to train individuals in homeownership skills, the idea 
that one should work, take care of their family, and make some 
contribution toward one's own shelter.
  The Velazquez amendment would say that any individual who has access 
to public housing could pay zero. If you homeowners in America have 
that luxury and that the proposal as put together by the chairman, 
ranging to $25 to $50 minimum rent, to be determined by the housing 
authority, would also put in the hands of the authority the ability to 
look at that individual and say, yes, you have an unusual circumstance 
and temporarily we will grant you access to housing at a minimal level. 
But understand, public housing is not intended to be a retirement home. 
This is transitional housing, and while you are here we expect you to 
learn what skills are required to be an effective homeowner, and making 
a contribution toward your own housing is certainly an important part 
of that lesson.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I think this is an 
important amendment. I think that people perhaps are unfamiliar with 
exactly the kinds of circumstances that many of the very poor people 
that are occupying public housing units face on a day-to-day basis.
  The truth is that, if we look at the kinds of people that have just 
lost their job or people that have had long-term unemployment, people 
that have had severe medical problems, if you look at the kinds of 
circumstances where in some States, for instance, the State of Texas, 
where your total welfare benefit can be as low as $188 a month, I just 
talked to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] and asked her what 
the basic welfare benefit was in the State of Florida. She said it was 
under $200 a month. I was wondering what, which my friend from North 
Carolina [Mr. Watt] suggested, the welfare benefit in the State of 
North Carolina might be.
  Certainly it can sound like this is not very much money. But the 
truth of the matter is, if you look at what raising these minimum rents 
from $25 to $50 can actually incur, there will be over 340,000 families 
in these circumstances whose rents will increase by $315 a year.
  That does not seem like a lot of money to people who can occupy this 
Chamber. But if you cannot occupy this Chamber and you look at the 
kinds of circumstances that people that have these very minimum 
incomes, that are on AFDC, this can be very hurtful. It can mean 
whether or not a baby is going to be fed. It can mean whether or not 
the medicine is going to be bought. It can mean whether or not the 
children are going to wake up hungry or go to bed hungry.
  These are the kinds of real-world issues that I feel far too many 
families in these circumstances face every day. So I would hope that we 
can find it in our hearts to support a minimum rent of $25, but we do 
not have to turn around and raise that to $50.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida, [Mrs. Carrie Meek].
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New 
York [Ms. Velazquez] for yielding the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that, No. 1, I graciously support 
the amendment of my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. 
Velazquez]. Like many of my colleagues in this body, I know from whence 
my colleague is coming. I know what the background is and the need for 
this amendment.
  First of all, there are some false assumptions that I need to talk 
about quickly. One false assumption is that people are going to have 
jobs. That is a false assumption. My colleague wants to take care of 
these people who have tried very hard to get a job but who will not 
have a job. If they get one, it will last only 2 or 3 months or more.
  The second thing the gentlewoman is trying to do is to be sure that 
the welfare reform bill works so that people can maintain housing and 
keep their quality of life going, as poor as it is. I do not want to 
see my colleagues put too much emphasis on the housing authorities on 
this bill.
  I have worked with them over the years. They are good people. But 
many times there is too much discretion in the way they make their 
decisions that something that you would like to see done in terms of an 
exemption, two-thirds of the families that we have been talking about 
are affected by this.
  I think the amendment is a good one, and I think that we cannot 
dictate according to circumstances all over this country how much a 
person should pay. I thank the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. 
Velazquez] for bringing this amendment to the attention of this House, 
and I am asking the support of my colleagues for the amendment of the 
gentlewoman from New York.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this good amendment. We often talk 
about doing the right thing. Voting in support of this amendment is the 
right thing.
  The amendment would require local housing authorities to set minimum 
rents of $0-$25 for public housing and assisted housing. Under the 
bill, minimum rents would be set between $25 and $50 monthly.
  We know that some residents of public housing and assisted housing 
will lose their SSI benefits under the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. This 
would place an added burden on individuals already financially strapped 
and may result in the eviction of those simply unable to pay.
  The Velazquez amendment does not dictate how much a tenant will pay. 
It recognizes that depending on the immediate circumstances, some 
tenants cannot afford to pay even a dollar for rent. We may not want to 
admit it--but there are still v-e-r-y poor people in our country.
  For people with little or no income, the $25-$50 threshold required 
in the bill, shuts them out of the housing market. Mr. Speaker, I 
cannot think of a city in America that wants to increase its homeless 
population.
  The amendment also authorizes HUD to develop exemptions for families 
faced with unanticipated medical expenses, families who have lost their 
welfare benefits, and persons unemployed.
  The bill allows local public housing authorities to determine 
hardship exemptions. I will not comment about the myriad of exemptions 
and scope of some exemptions that will come out of this newly granted 
authority.
  Mr. Speaker, approximately two-thirds of the families affected by the 
new minimum rent requirement would be families with children. Let's do 
the right thing to keep families in safe affordable housing. Support 
this good amendment.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Indiana, [Ms. Julia Carson].

[[Page H2269]]

  Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I too 
want to commend the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez] for 
having the foresight, the compassion, the sensitivity, and the 
understanding to offer her amendment.
  Prior to becoming a Member of the U.S. Congress, I headed a welfare 
agency in the city of Indianapolis. When I took it over, it had a $20 
million deficit. When I left, it had $20 million in the bank. We took 
care of poor people. We got people off of welfare and put them into 
jobs and into training and into educational experiences.
  We did not do that by being cruel. We did not do that by removing a 
safety net, as this bill would do ultimately; and that is to annihilate 
the Brooke amendment to raise from $25 to $50 a month the minimum rent 
that persons would have to pay in public housing.
  We understand, by virtue of my past experience, that there are a lot 
of people that are responsible who want to take care of their families 
but life's circumstances do not allow them temporarily to do that. We 
should not pass a punitive measure against somebody who finds 
themselves in circumstances over which they have no control. I support 
the amendment enthusiastically.

                              {time}  1300

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Jackson].
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of 
the Velazquez amendment, which sets a minimum rent of zero to $25 and a 
waiver for our Nation's most vulnerable who find themselves caught in 
situations of extreme hardship. I thank the gentlewoman from New York 
for her strong commitment to those who need our help the most and 
appreciate her advocacy on behalf of this critical issue.
  I want to first begin with a point of clarification. Public housing, 
as the other side has referred to it, is not transitional housing. It 
is affordable housing, and it is not free housing. It is affordable 
housing because the private market does not build homes for poor people 
and that is why the Government is in the housing business.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the onerous provision of H.R. 2 which 
establishes a minimum rent for public housing and choice-based rental 
assistance recipients and provides only a voluntary waiver for hardship 
situations. While $25 to $50 does not seem like anything to most of us 
fortunate enough to have a steady stream of income, a minimum rent 
above $25 would pose a genuine hardship on families who are earning 
little or no income. This is especially true in the case of families 
who have lost or are at risk of losing their welfare benefits, are 
unemployed, are transitioning from homelessness, or are unexpectedly 
burdened by unanticipated medical expenses. For families caught in such 
desperate straits, $50 may just constitute too high a monthly expense.
  Mr. Chairman, this provision could unduly burden 340,000 families 
across the Nation if all public housing authorities implemented this 
rent scheme. Two-thirds of the families affected by this would be 
families with young children. Last year in the State of Illinois, 4,464 
families were adversely impacted by the $25 minimum rent. Doubling this 
figure would force our neediest constituents to survive under further 
strain to provide food, medicine, and clothing for their children.
  Mr. Chairman, these are basic human necessities which we take for 
granted. In this Nation, which is considered an economic superpower in 
the world community, how can we demonstrate concern for those 
struggling to survive under such desperate conditions?
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for offering this 
critical amendment and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
the Virgin Islands [Ms. Christian-Green].
  Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New 
York.
  I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my colleague from 
New York and I commend her for compassion and courage in offering it.
  If enacted, the Velazquez amendment would allow the Secretary of 
Housing and Urban Development to create certain classes of hardship and 
accordingly set a minimum rent under this category of no more than $25.
  I come from an area, Mr. Chairman, where in recent years we have been 
ravished by one devastating hurricane after an another. Thousands of my 
constituents were left homeless and jobless after these storms. It 
would be unconscionable if, in the face of such unexpected and 
devastating loss, a family would face eviction because there was no 
flexibility to provide them with a period of adjustment by setting 
their monthly rent at a lower level than the minimum $25 that H.R. 2 
would now require.
  Overall, Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned that this bill before us 
today, the so-called Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act, is yet 
another in a series of actions being taken against the poor of our 
Nation. If H.R. 2 wants to live up to its charge, then we must pass the 
Velazquez amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do so.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the Velazquez amendment. 
Some of the reasons have been stated and I will briefly allude to them.
  The fact is that both amounts of money we are talking about are very 
small: $25 a month, $50 a month. But for people who do not have it, 
because they are suddenly faced with an unanticipated medical 
emergency, because they are in transition between homelessness and 
having housing, because they have just lost their job and for some 
reason cannot get unemployment insurance, because they have applied for 
public benefits but the public benefits have not come through yet, 
because they have lost their welfare benefits, and we have in recent 
years set up a myriad of ways that people can lose their welfare 
benefits even when they should not, because they are unemployed, for 
whatever reason, $25 can be a huge amount of money. There is no reason 
to change the current situation where the public housing authority can 
set the minimum and substitute a system where the person has to seek a 
waiver, go through the bureaucracy, and wait the time at a time of 
crisis in their own lives. There is no reason to do that. It really 
adds nothing to this bill.
  Second, I want to address myself to the comment made by the gentleman 
from Louisiana who said public housing is not permanent housing, it is 
not a retirement home, it is transitional housing. Well, it is not 
transitional housing for many people. People in public housing whose 
only sin is that they are making $5 or $6 or $7 an hour, they are 
making minimum wage or they are making $7 an hour and they cannot 
afford housing on the permanent market, that is permanent housing for 
them.
  Until we decide that the minimum wage ought to be a living wage, 
ought to be a wage where people can afford housing on the private 
market, and I think the people on that side of the aisle do not agree 
with that kind of philosophy, I do not think anybody would vote for a 
$12 or $13 minimum wage, I am not too sure how many people would on 
this side either, but until we do something like that, there are going 
to be millions of people in this country working 40 or 50 hours a week, 
paying taxes and not having enough money to get housing on the private 
market. For them, public housing is the only possible permanent home.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Velazquez amendment and urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  The bill provides for a minimum rent of $50 per month. Ms. 
Velazquez's amendment provides for a minimum rent of $25 a month. And I 
am sure, and I am glad, that most American citizens probably cannot 
relate to what all this bickering is about. Twenty five dollars a 
month, $325 a year, is peanuts to most people, and that is fortunate in 
America.
  But there are some of us who remember when $325 a year, $25 a month, 
was a major, major difference between our ability to eat and not eat. 
And it is important to us to look out for people in

[[Page H2270]]

our country who for whatever reason, often for reasons not of their own 
making, they are between jobs, they are down on their luck, so to 
speak, as we used to say, and they simply do not have the money.
  So, we are talking about for some people in this country, the issue 
of whether they have housing or whether they do not have housing, 
whether we put more people on the street or whether we provide some 
compassion and provisions for them to have a roof above their heads.
  For that reason, I want to applaud the gentlewoman from New York, 
[Ms. Velazquez], for bringing this amendment to us and encourage my 
colleagues in the House to support the amendment. It will make this 
bill a better bill.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  My colleagues, once again we are telling disadvantaged families that 
they do not matter, that they are expendable, all in the name of a 
capital gains tax cut.
  I call on all of my colleagues to ask themselves if there is anyplace 
left for compassion in this Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Let us, if we can, fix the parameters of this debate. Under the terms 
of H.R. 2 we ask every tenant to pay a minimum rent. That minimum rent 
can be set by the local housing authority at between $25 and $50 per 
month. There are people who object to the fact that a minimum rent is 
established, or that it is established at that range from $25 to $50 a 
month.
  The amendment of the gentlewoman from New York would suggest that the 
minimum rent ought to be from $0 to $25, so that their minimum rent 
might be $5 a month or $4 a month.
  The very idea that we have been talking about so much over the last 4 
days is that we need additional help for more people, that there is 
need out there for more people. But when we say to a family who 
receives public housing, and very often the additional benefit of 
utilities, that they do not have to do anything, they do not even have 
to pay a minimum rent of $25 or $30 or $35, what we are saying to the 
people who are on the waiting list, to people who cannot even get into 
public housing to begin with and who are paying market rate is, they 
are going to have to wait out there a whole lot longer because this 
family is not willing to do its fair share.
  Now, in this bill we establish exemptions. We establish exemptions. 
We say in the bill, and I am going to read exactly from the bill, if I 
can:

       The local housing agency shall grant an exemption to any 
     family unable to pay such amount because of financial 
     hardship which shall include situations in which, one, the 
     family has lost eligibility or is awaiting an eligibility 
     determination for Federal, State or local programs. Two, the 
     family would be evicted as a result of the imposition of the 
     minimum rent requirement under the subsection. Three, the 
     income of the family has decreased because of changed 
     circumstances, because of loss of employment. Four, a death 
     in the family has occurred, as well as other situations as 
     may be determined by the agency.

  So, we are providing the broad exemptions that families might 
possibly need if they were faced with the hardship of having to pay $25 
or $30 or $35 or $40 or $50 as a minimum rent for the use of their 
unit, and in addition to the utilities.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to return briefly for a moment 
to the issue of permanent versus temporary housing. The gentleman 
raised the issue in his remarks that it is difficult to justify to the 
hundreds of people who may be waiting, who are willing and anxious to 
occupy the housing and pay $25, where an individual who may be fully 
competent of paying is paying nothing; that this bill then sets in 
motion a minimum requirement that just like a homeowner, they must make 
some contribution toward their shelter.
  It is not that we are going to be callous. We are going to look at 
their individual situation, and if they have a problem, tell us about 
it. Sure, we might waive the rent requirement for a month or two while 
they get back on their feet, but again, this is not a permanent 
situation.
  The gentleman earlier said that public housing should be permanent. 
There could be no more significant philosophic difference on this issue 
than that single point. Taxpayers will agree to help a person who is 
having a bad day and say to them, ``We will help you with social 
programs, with shelter, whatever it takes to get you back on your feet, 
but we are not going to pay for a retirement community where you refuse 
to take actions to improve your own circumstance.''
  Tolerance is fine, help is fine, but saying to someone that they make 
no contribution toward their housing at all, forever, there is a limit 
to which taxpayers will not go, and I think we are finding it.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I again yield myself such time 
as I may consume, to note that the amendment of the gentlewoman from 
New York goes beyond once again where the administration is, because 
the administration sets a minimum rent of $25. It also goes beyond, 
interestingly, where the Democratic substitute is at right now, and I 
would suggest that maybe the Democratic substitute, for those people 
who would support this amendment, perhaps they would want to amend 
their substitute now to reflect the gentlewoman's concerns.
  The reality is; the reality is that we are asking for a sense of 
mutual obligation and responsibility just like we were talking about in 
terms of community service and community work; that yes, they will be 
helped; yes, they will receive an apartment; yes, they often will 
receive their utilities also paid for, but in return we ask for 
something. We are going to ask for community service. We are going to 
ask them, subject to their ability to pay and their ability to ask for 
a hardship exemption if they cannot pay, to pay at least a minimum rent 
of between $25 and $50.

                              {time}  1315

  I wonder what kind of a statement that makes. If we say that people 
cannot pay that, that that is asking too much, what kind of a statement 
does that make to people that are equally poor, have an equally low 
income, and are not fortunate enough to be in public housing? They may 
be paying not $25 or $50 but they may be paying $200 or $300 or $400 
monthly, or maybe more than that, for their apartment to keep a roof 
over their heads.
  I know the gentleman from Massachusetts had a question. I will be 
happy to yield briefly for the gentleman, because again, we both had 
equal time. We have limited time here.
  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. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think people are objecting, Mr. Chairman, to 
the idea that there should be minimum rents. I think what the 
gentlewoman from New York is trying to point out is that there are 
circumstances in places like Texas, I would venture to guess maybe 
Louisiana, I know in Florida, where the monthly payments on welfare are 
below $200; in the State of Texas, it is $188; that becomes a 
significant portion, and going up to $50 in those circumstances really 
can mean whether the child is going to get enough food to eat.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, that is 
precisely why we have hardship exemptions which would allow a housing 
authority in a special case to say you might not have to pay anything 
at all that particular month, but for those people who have the 
capacity to pay, that they will pay.
  I just want to mention, many people are familiar with PHDAA, an 
association of relatively large housing authorities. They went out and 
surveyed their membership. About 800 housing authorities, local housing 
authorities, charged more than $25. In no case, in no case, none, did 
anyone get evicted because of a failure to pay that minimum rent.
  So the idea, the concept, that people are going to be thrown out 
because they are being asked to pay $25 a month or $30 a month with 
hardship exemptions if they have special circumstances is not factually 
correct. It

[[Page H2271]]

is not borne out by the evidence. It does identify the division between 
the two sides of this debate, between those who say that people ought 
to be asked to do what they possibly can, and those people who think 
that people ought to be asked to do nothing.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman think that the local 
housing authorities are facing budgetary constraints? And this is not 
that they do not want to grant exemptions, just that we cannot trust 
that they will do that because they are facing fiscal and budgetary 
constraints.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. If I can reclaim my time, I think once again 
the information that I just provided to this body was that over half of 
the membership of large housing authorities who charge minimum rents in 
excess of $25, in their experience, universally, not one person was 
evicted who was asked to pay minimum rent. In this case, in addition to 
that, we have in this bill protections, additional protections, 
additional exemptions that can be given to a family in time of 
particular need. It is the least that we can ask.
  Even the administration, and I would suggest even the Democratic 
substitute, acknowledges the fact that a minimum needs to be set, and 
it mocks the idea of having a minimum when we say that the minimum 
ought to be between zero and $25. For that reason, I would have to 
oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez].
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 51.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 51 offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia:
       Page 99, after line 11, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (e) Optional Time Limitation on Occupancy by Families for 
     PHA's With Waiting Lists of 1 Year or Longer.--
       (1) 5-year limitation.--A public housing agency described 
     in paragraph (2) may, at the option of the agency and on an 
     agencywide basis, limit the duration of occupancy in public 
     housing of each family to 60 consecutive months. Occupancy in 
     public housing occurring before the effective date of this 
     Act shall not count toward such 60 months.
       (2) Applicability only to pha's with waiting lists of 1 
     year or longer.--A public housing agency described in this 
     paragraph is an agency that, upon the conclusion of the 60-
     month period referred to in paragraph (1) for any family, has 
     a waiting list for occupancy in public housing dwelling units 
     that contains a sufficient number of families such that the 
     last family on such list who will be provided a public 
     housing dwelling unit will be provided the unit 1 year or 
     more from such date (based on the turnover rate for public 
     housing dwelling units of the agency).
       (3) Exceptions for working, elderly, and disabled 
     families.--The provisions of paragraph (1) shall not apply 
     to--
       (A) any family that contains an adult member who, during 
     the 60-month period referred to in such paragraph, obtains 
     employment; except that, if at any time during the 12-month 
     period beginning upon the commencement of such employment, 
     the family does not contain an adult member who has 
     employment, the provisions of paragraph (1) shall apply and 
     the nonconsecutive months during which the family did not 
     contain an employed member shall be treated for purposes of 
     such paragraph as being consecutive;
       (B) any elderly family; or
       (C) any disabled family.
       (4) Preferences for families moving to find employment.--A 
     public housing agency may, in establishing preferences under 
     section 321(d), provide a preference for any family that--
       (A) occupied a public housing dwelling unit owned or 
     operated by a different public housing agency, but was 
     limited in the duration of such occupancy by reason of 
     paragraph (1) of this subsection; and
       (B) is determined by the agency to have moved to the 
     jurisdiction of the agency to obtain employment.
       (5) Preferences for families moving to find employment.--A 
     public housing agency may, in establishing preferences under 
     section 321(d), provide a preference for any family that--
       (A) occupied a public housing dwelling unit owned or 
     operated by a different public housing agency, but was 
     limited in the duration of such occupancy by reason of 
     paragraph (1) of this subsection; and
       (B) is determined by the agency to have moved to the 
     jurisdiction of the agency to obtain employment.
       (5) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       (A) Employment.--The term ``employment'' means employment 
     in a position that--
       (i) is not a job training or work program required under a 
     welfare program; and
       (ii) involves an average of 20 or more hours of work per 
     week.
       (B) Welfare program.--The term ``welfare program'' means a 
     program for aid or assistance under a State program funded 
     under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (as in 
     effect before or after the effective date of the amendments 
     made by section 103(a) of the Personal Responsibility and 
     Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996).

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, Federal low-income housing 
assistance programs were originally designed to be transitional, 
helping people find temporary, decent shelter. They were never intended 
to be permanent. The reality today, though, is that many families know 
no other experience than a public housing environment.
  Today, in too many cases this housing assistance is creating reverse 
incentives for its beneficiaries to improve their situation and become 
self-sufficient. According to HUD, 40 percent of the residents of 
public housing leave within 3 years, 31 percent leave within 10 years, 
and about one-third live in public housing for more than 10 years.
  This amendment will not affect the majority of residents, and it 
completely exempts the elderly and the handicapped. But because of the 
Federal budget constraints that have been imposed, we cannot increase 
the number of federally assisted low-income housing units. It is not 
going to happen.
  We need to determine how, though, we can justify extending 
indefinitely public housing assistance to residents who may be capable 
of improving their economic well-being while we deny others who are 
equally deserving.
  The fact is that there are three times as many people on waiting 
lists equally deserving as there are people in public-assisted housing 
units. Within my congressional district there is a 2-year waiting list 
and it has been closed, leaving thousands of families, equally 
deserving, unable to even apply.
  This is not fair. Across the country thousands of well-deserving and 
eligible families, many spending more than 50 percent of their income 
on substandard housing, have been told they have to wait at least 2 
years, and then hopefully they can get on a waiting list.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not know what the total of such families are, 
precisely, but we know that in most cases waiting lists are closed. Let 
us be fair. Let us open up access to more deserving families. Across 
the Nation 13 million households were eligible to receive Federal 
housing assistance last year, slightly more than 4 million. Less than a 
third did receive such assistance.
  The amendment that I am offering gives local housing authorities the 
option, the option, it is up to them, to impose a 5-year time limit on 
those individuals and families who are not elderly, not disabled, and 
who are not already employed at least 20 hours a week. The amendment 
builds on the self-sufficiency contract that is part of this bill.
  Adoption of this amendment is going to enable local housing 
authorities to use an incentive to encourage tenants to use assisted 
housing in the way it was originally intended. Since housing assistance 
to some tenants could be limited to 5 years, a higher number of rental 
units can be recycled more frequently. Publicly assisted housing can be 
more accessible to more people.
  It is the fairest thing we can do. I urge support for the amendment.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the gentleman from Virginia 
needs to be complimented by this body. There are few Members who are 
more active in the area of housing, who understand the consequences of 
bad housing, than the gentleman from Virginia who has in his background 
experience at the local level in dealing with housing authorities and 
with assisted housing.
  The gentleman's points are valid points. The wait lists are long. The

[[Page H2272]]

amount of people that are there in public housing for a generation, 
permanently, are too great. In fact, I think what the gentleman's 
amendment seeks to do is to end the sense of generations being in 
public housing. It is a statement that public housing should not be 
considered a way of life, but sort of a step up or transition to self-
sufficiency, in an effort to try and recycle that benefit so as many 
Americans as possible can use it in their time of need.
  Unfortunately, the way the system works now, when a family moves into 
public housing there is not much incentive for them to move back out, 
back into the system, because we do not deal with the root causes of 
poverty. We just deal with the symptom of shelter. In that sense, 
because there is no incentive or no time limitation, no encouragement 
to move through the system, there are literally millions of Americans 
that are waiting and do not have the benefit of having a subsidized 
unit.
  I wanted to just, if I could, yield to the gentleman from Virginia, 
if he could just speak to exactly the tenants that might be affected by 
this. Would it be just anybody? Would it be seniors and elderly? I 
wonder if he can just describe that.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, no seniors would be affected, no 
people who are disabled, no one who would have difficulty in achieving 
an income. There are a lot of people in assisted housing that simply do 
not have the ability to support themselves because of disabilities, or 
because of age or whatever. This only applies to families that are able 
bodied, that have been able to use assisted housing for 5 years, and it 
also only applies, I would emphasize to the chairman and thank him for 
his kind words, it only applies if there are waiting lists.
  If there are no waiting lists, in other words, if there are no 
equally deserving families waiting to use that unit, it does not apply, 
so that it takes no assisted housing units off the market. All it does 
is to expand assisted housing to more people who are equally deserving.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I thank the gentleman. Let me say, Mr. 
Chairman, I think this is a very valid, very progressive amendment. I 
think the gentleman speaks to some of the concerns that many of us have 
in terms of assuring that more Americans have the benefit of public 
housing.
  I should say, I am concerned a bit about the fact that we were not 
able to move last year's bill through conference to the President's 
desk for signature. I think we tried to certainly develop some broad 
reforms that boldly moved forward and helped to transform the entire 
population in public housing.
  I am a little concerned about the amendment offered by the gentleman. 
While I think it is a very good amendment, I am only concerned that it 
not be sort of veto bait, or it would stop the momentum of the reforms 
we have in this bill, because we are trying so desperately in this bill 
to create that sense of self-sufficiency, self-reliance, of building 
work skills, of transitioning back to the work force where people can 
have the choice of moving out of public housing and into the work 
force, where they make their own choices for housing, employment, and 
different choices for their family.
  So I just voice that concern, which is not a policy concern, but 
really a concern that may affect the ability for us to move this bill 
through the Chamber, given what I anticipate might be the opposition by 
some Members from the Democratic side of the aisle and potentially over 
in the other body, and perhaps in the White House.
  I just lay that out there as a potential concern. At the same time, I 
want to compliment the gentleman from Virginia for his work on this 
amendment, for his work on housing in general, for his sense that 
public housing ought to be a place where there are law-abiding people, 
where we do not tolerate failure and do not tolerate crime, and it is 
integrated into the community, and is looked upon not as something that 
people run away from or look the other way from, but in fact as a 
magnet to help strengthen the community.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. 
Chairman, so it is the gentleman's considered judgment that even though 
this amendment might pass in the House, that it might jeopardize final 
enactment of this bill?
  If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, that is an important 
consideration. I want to hear from my colleague, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], on the bill, but I will respond 
subsequently.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to just acknowledge the fine work 
that my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], has done 
on housing and a number of other issues in his career in the Congress. 
I appreciate it, and have worked very closely with him on a number of 
issues.
  This is one where we have a very, very strong disagreement in terms 
of the ultimate resolution or consequences that this amendment could 
bring down upon what I believe are some of the most poor and vulnerable 
people in this country.
  While I think he does this with the best instincts to try to prod 
people to go back to work, I think the difficulties that this could 
ultimately impose on the poorest people in this country are really 
almost unimaginable, when I think of the innovation and creativity that 
this body has come up with over the course of the last few days on this 
housing bill alone, to find every way possible to punish the poor, in 
the thought that somehow if we punish them enough that they will 
finally work their way out of poverty.

                              {time}  1330

  That is ultimately the goal of these amendments. It is not just this 
amendment. It is the amendment to go minimum rents $25 to $50. It is a 
very tough amendment to argue against. My colleagues say there is a lot 
of very poor people that are on welfare. They get $188 a month, going 
up to $50, that is going to take away some of their food. My colleagues 
say, no, if we raise that minimum rent, boy, we will get them to go to 
work; let us go out and kick out all the poor people.
  In this bill we are going to go from 75 percent targeting to people 
with 30 percent of median incomes or less. That is the very poor people 
of the country. That is the vast majority of people that live in public 
housing, the vast majority of people that get section 8 vouchers. And 
yet what we are going to do is say, no, with the rate, the way to fix 
the public housing programs is to jack up the rents on those people 
that are there, and then what we are going to do is bring in a lot 
wealthier people to occupy the units.
  It is a brave new world we are establishing. Boy oh boy, I will bet 
that sooner or later we are going to have public housing that looks 
terrific. The only trouble is no poor people are going to live in it. 
What we are going to end up with is a system where we have made 
ourselves look good and we can walk around and boast about the fact 
that we have gotten all these work incentives for the poor which 
basically take a cattle prod to the poor. And then what we are going to 
do, because the justification of actually lowering the dollar amounts 
on how much goes into the housing bill is because of the budget 
agreement, which is an argument we went through late last evening.
  The truth of the matter is we are going to spend under this budget 
agreement $35 billion on capital gains tax reductions. So there is an 
incentive. We have an incentive for the rich to get richer by giving 
them an incentive to get richer by lowering their taxes. But the way we 
are going to get the poor to work harder is to get the cattle prod out 
and give them a little jab. That is essentially what this bill does. 
That is effectively what I think the ultimate resolution of this 
amendment will be, that we are going to then go out, if we look at the 
facts, it would be one thing if we had millions of people in public 
housing who were just sitting there languishing.
  The amendment, I believe, addresses a nonexistent problem. The median 
stay of households in public housing is 4 years. Most households, over 
71 percent, live in public housing less than 10 years. And 40 percent 
stay less than 3 years. Those who remain longer are

[[Page H2273]]

generally the elderly and disabled. I am sure that we could go out, and 
I am sure the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] has found individual 
cases where there is an exemption. That should not be. But to try and 
suggest that at a period of time where we have a new welfare reform 
bill which is going to throw people off of welfare, where we have a 
legal immigrant program which is essentially going to deny legal 
immigrants even SSI benefits, and then we are going to come back and 
now say we are going to take away your housing, I mean, what are we 
going to do?
  Then we have also cut the homeless budget by 25 percent. So what we 
end up with is people on the street. Then everybody drives around in 
their cars and they look around at all the people on the street and 
think, gosh, that is terrible. My goodness, this homeless situation is 
terrible in America, and, boy, I wish those people down in Washington 
would pass some laws to take care of homelessness because this is a 
shame.
  I mean, Mr. Chairman, ultimately it is unpopular for us to stand up 
here and fight on all these issues. It sounds like we are defending the 
status quo. But underneath the status quo is a basic fundamental 
judgment that we say we are going to take care of poor and vulnerable 
people. If they want to castigate us as looking like all we are trying 
to maintain is the status quo because we try to stand up for very poor 
and vulnerable people, so be it. But that is what the value judgment 
is. And I am proud to stand with it.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been debating the housing bill now for quite a 
few days. And it seems like we spend most of our time, probably 99 
percent of our time, debating two versions of government housing. For 
those of us who believe that more houses and better houses could be 
produced in a free market and in a free society, it is a bit 
frustrating. But the debate goes on.
  I sincerely believe that everybody in the debate has the best of 
motivation, the desire is to be compassionate and to help poor people 
get homes. The tragedy is that we have been doing this for a good many 
years and have had very little success and this attempt now, again well 
motivated, to change the management of the housing program to a more 
local management program really leaves a lot to be desired.
  On one side of the aisle we find out that the biggest complaint is 
that we do not have enough money, and the complaint is that the budget 
has been greatly reduced. But the way I read the figures, the numbers 
are going up over $5 billion this year, so there is going to be a lot 
more money in this HUD program compared to last. It is said on the 
other side that we are going to save $100 million in management at the 
same time we are spending a lot more money. Much has been said about 
how do we protect the rights of the individuals receiving public 
housing, and I have recognized that this is a very serious concern. Yet 
when we have a government program, it is virtually impossible to really 
honor and respect. And straightforward protection of individual rights 
is very difficult.
  I am concerned about the victims' rights, those people who lose their 
income, who lose their job because of government spending and 
government programs. It is said that we are trying very hard to take 
money from the rich and give it to the poor so the poor have houses. 
But quite frankly, I am convinced that most of the taxation comes from 
poor people. We have a regressive tax system. We have a monetary system 
where inflation hurts the poor more than the rich. And there is a 
transfer of wealth to government housing programs.
  Unfortunately, everybody agrees the poor are not getting houses. And 
so many of the wealthy benefit from these programs. It is the rich 
beneficiaries, those who receive the rents and those who get to build 
the buildings are the most concerned that this government housing 
program continues.

  Until we recognize the failure of government programs, I think we are 
going to continue to do the wrong things for a long time to come 
because there is no evidence on either side that we are really 
challenging the concept of public housing. There are two visions of one 
type of program on government housing. Some day somewhere along the 
line in this House we have to get around to debating the vision of a 
free society, a free society with a free market and low taxes, and a 
sound monetary system will provide more houses for the poor than any 
other system.
  Much has been said about the corporate welfare and much has been 
recognized that corporations do benefit. But I am on the record very 
clearly that I would not endorse anything where a corporation or the 
wealthy get direct benefits from these government programs, whether it 
is the housing program or Eximbank or whatever.
  I am also very cautious to define corporate welfare somewhat 
differently than others. Because when we give somebody a tax break and 
allow them to keep some of their own money, this is not welfare. It is 
when we take money from the poor people and allow it to gravitate into 
the hands of the wealthy, that is the welfare that has to be addressed 
and that is the part that we seem to fail to look at endlessly whether 
it is the housing program or any other program.
  It is true, I think that it is very possible for all of us to have a 
vision which is designed to be compassionate and concerned about the 
injustice in the system. I do not challenge the views of anyone, but 
neither should my motivations be challenged because I come down on the 
side of saying that a free society and a constitutional government 
would not accept any of these programs because they have not worked and 
they continue to fail.
  The real cost of this program and all programs unfairly falls on the 
poor people. Yet we continue endlessly to do this and we never suggest 
that maybe, maybe there is an alternative to what we are doing. We have 
so many amendments tinkering with how we protect the rights of the 
poor. I think that inevitably is going to fail because we are not smart 
enough to tinker with the work requirements.
  Quite frankly, I have been supportive of a work requirement as an 
agreement to come into public housing, very, very reluctantly and not 
enthusiastically, because I am convinced that the management of a work 
program of 8 hours a month is going to outcost everything that we are 
doing.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I would like to 
simply address something the gentleman from Texas said a moment ago. He 
said that while if we lower taxes, if we had lower interest rates, if 
we changed our general economics, you would do a lot for housing for 
the poor. Maybe and maybe not. I am not going to address that.
  The fact of the matter is that whatever we do in our general 
policies, maybe eventually if we change them in the right direction, I 
tend not to agree with the gentleman as to what the right direction is, 
maybe eventually we would be providing, the private sector would be 
building more housing for the poor. It would be very nice if that were 
so and if that could be made so.
  But the fact is that today in many, many areas of the country, maybe 
in the whole country, I do not know, but certainly in many areas of the 
country, it is simply impossible for the private sector without subsidy 
to produce housing affordable by low income working people, not to 
mention by people who may be on public assistance or on SSI or disabled 
or what have you.
  It simply is impossible in many areas of the country today for the 
private sector, and they will tell you that, any builder in New York or 
any place, in many places, they will tell you that given the cost of 
building, the cost of land, the cost of money, the cost of labor, et 
cetera, they cannot build housing other than for upper income people 
and maybe the top of the middle class, certainly not for low income 
people.
  As long as that is true, we are going to need government subsidized 
housing programs for low income and moderate income people. That was 
the basic idea of the Housing Act of 1937. That is still the basic idea 
of public policy today. I hope it remains so, that it is ultimately our 
responsibility, as a collective people represented through government, 
to help those who, given their best efforts, cannot help themselves.
  Should we require their best efforts? Of course. But for those who 
may be

[[Page H2274]]

working at minimum wage jobs or even at jobs that pay $10 an hour, $11 
an hour and cannot afford housing in the private market, we should help 
them. It is our duty to help them, to the extent that they cannot help 
themselves, because everybody has a right, assuming they contribute 
what they can, to food and clothing and shelter. I would add health 
care.
  Public housing may have been conceived in 1937 initially. I was not 
around. It may have been conceived initially as temporary until the 
Depression was over, until things changed. But the fact is that we need 
public housing today and we need it on a permanent basis for many, many 
people who cannot and will not be able to earn enough money to get out 
of it, to pay for decent housing in the private sector.
  For working people, this amendment is a bad idea if it were applied 
to them, but there are also people who are not working. What about 
someone who is 45 years old and is disabled? We just passed welfare 
reform. Under the welfare reform bill, people are mandatorily kicked 
off the welfare rolls after 5 years.
  Now, we did not pass sufficient job training funding to enable these 
people, all of them or most of them, to get decent jobs. We did not 
pass sufficient child care funding to enable single mothers with 
children, all of them or most of them, to be able to take care, to have 
someplace secure to put their kids in a decent environment when they go 
to work. Those things we did not do. They are too expensive.
  Now to add that someone who is on welfare, who is trying to get off 
welfare, who is trying to get a job and we have a 4.9-percent official 
unemployment rate in this country, the lowest it has been in decades, 
but what is really a 12-percent unemployment rate, if we count the 
people who are not officially in the job market because they have been 
discouraged, they could not find a job for 6 months or 8 months or 1 
year and stop looking, for the people who never got into it because 
they have no marketable skills where they dropped out of high school 
and they are on street corners hustling or something, if we count those 
who are employed part time when they need full-time jobs, the real 
unemployment rate in terms of people who need jobs, want jobs and 
cannot get them is probably closer to 12 percent.
  As long as that is true, until we find a way of telling Mr. Greenspan 
that when we have higher economic growth, it is a good thing, not a 
terrible thing, that creating more jobs or higher wages is a good 
thing, not a bad thing, until we change those policies, until we can 
generate jobs for whoever wants them, we have a need for welfare 
programs. We have a need for low income housing programs without time 
cutoffs and certainly that goes for working people.
  So let us address those problems. Because what happens under the 
Moran amendment to someone who may not be working, is trying to find a 
job and cannot and is thrown off welfare and is thrown out of their 
home?
  Mr. Chairman, I submit this is not a very well targeted amendment, 
although well intentioned.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that, first, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], be given 3 
minutes to respond to some of the issues that have been brought up and 
perhaps be able to work out this amendment with the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Lazio].
  I also would have a question of the gentleman from New York with 
regard to what the gentleman's intentions are for the rest of the day, 
if in fact this amendment can be dealt with in the next few minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Moran] be given 3 additional minutes to speak in addition to the time 
he has already spent?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, would it be appropriate 
if we could clarify with the gentleman from New York what the intent of 
the chairman would be for the next half-hour or so?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] has the floor.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, may I be recognized for a 
unanimous-consent request?
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] yield for 
a unanimous-consent request?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman for a 
unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I was 
going to ask for a unanimous consent to give us additional time, but if 
I can take some of the gentleman's time, I will be glad to extend that 
if he needs additional time.
  It is my intention that we rise in about 10 or 15 minutes, or 2 p.m., 
to conduct the other business of the House and that we reconvene.
  I know the gentleman is enthusiastically looking forward to finishing 
this bill, and we are hopeful of addressing it again tomorrow and I 
hope we can wrap it up tomorrow.
  I think the gentleman's amendment which might be next might be best 
held off until tomorrow. I am happy to start it now, but I think for 
continuity purposes, the gentleman from Massachusetts may want to have 
his amendment heard tomorrow.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. If the gentleman from Virginia will 
yield, but the only concern I have is that sometimes what we might see 
happen is not get to this targeting amendment tomorrow but rather 
sometime on Tuesday, prior to when the vast majority of the membership 
comes back.
  I know that the floor manager over there, from the office of the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], would never think of doing such a 
thing, but nevertheless we might fall into that category, which would 
be unfortunate because I do think this gets to the heart of the debate.
  So I want to work out with the chairman some assurance that we would 
have an opportunity to debate this.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I cannot imagine that virtually 
every Member on this side of the aisle would not want to be present to 
hear the gentleman from Massachusetts make his case on his amendment, 
so I think the gentleman's concern is probably unfounded.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
strike the requisite number of words, at which time I think we would 
conclude debate on this amendment. That would be my purpose.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, first of all, as the gentleman 
from Massachusetts suggested, there are some issues that need to be 
cleared up.
  My two friends and colleagues on my side have entered a good deal of 
rhetorical information into this debate. Some of it was not specific to 
this particular amendment, though, I would suggest. In the first place, 
we talk about punishing low-income families, and I would suggest to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts that while there are 1 million low-income 
families who are in publicly assisted housing, there are three times 
that many who are equally low-income who are not in publicly assisted 
housing. And if we are talking about punishing people, those people are 
effectively being punished by being denied assisted housing, and that 
is the purpose of this amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would point out briefly 
that that gets to the heart of this debate, and that is ultimately what 
H.R. 2 is about, is picking up the pieces after we have cut the housing 
budget in this country last year with no debate, no hearings, from $28 
to $20 billion.
  When we do that, then ultimately we are not going to ever get to 
meeting the needs of the millions of families that the gentleman is 
talking about. But the gentleman's amendment is not going to do 
anything more to meet those needs.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman for his comments on the underlying bill. They are not 
particularly

[[Page H2275]]

pertinent to this particular amendment because this amendment opens up 
access to people. It only applies when there are equally deserving 
people who have not had the access to assisted housing, many of whom 
are paying 50 percent of their income.
  I would suggest to my colleague from New York, when he talks about 
handicapped people, and so on, being affected, they are all exempted 
from this amendment, the handicapped, the elderly. There are a number 
of exceptions. I would suggest to my colleague to read the amendment 
and he will be assured of that fact.
  Now, let me address myself to the comments of the chairman. The 
chairman suggested that passage of this bill might be jeopardized by 
inclusion of this amendment. I think this amendment might very well 
pass within the House, but he may very well be right and I would accept 
his judgment in terms of enactment. I want this bill to be enacted, and 
I would just like to take a couple of minutes to tell my colleagues 
why.
  I lost a very close friend in Alexandria who was a police officer. He 
was shot in a public housing project at a place, a unit, which had been 
dealing drugs for years. It was an intergenerational business, 
apparently. We were helpless to do anything about it. And I will never 
forget his wife at the hospital looking up to me and saying how will I 
ever tell his two sons that daddy will never come home again. And the 
reason that happened is because we did not act responsibly on publicly 
assisted housing.
  This does. The many screening and eviction procedures that are 
allowed under this bill are absolutely necessary, and the people that 
they benefit the most, the most, are people living in publicly assisted 
communities. They desperately need the housing authority to exercise 
responsible judgments and to exclude people who are going to tear down 
the quality of life for a lot of them, to exclude criminals and drug 
addicts and people who are drug dealers. That needs to be done. It will 
be done by this bill.
  There are a number of other provisions in this bill which make a lot 
of sense. They are more important than this particular provision, as 
important as I think this is. I will leave this at this, this 
amendment, but I would ask the gentleman from New York, if I do 
withdraw it at this time, would the gentleman attempt to get some type 
of pilot demonstration program within the conference that might enable 
us to get some experience on how such an amendment would work?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I think that the gentleman's 
idea and obviously his passion are right on the mark, and I will do 
whatever I can to work in conference, if this bill is adopted, and I am 
hopeful it will, with the VA's strong support, that we will be able to 
begin to make some headway and create some type of demonstration 
project so that we can establish that this works just the way the 
gentleman says it will.
  I will also commit to the gentleman that if for any reason that does 
not bear fruit, and I am hopeful that it will and I will fight for it, 
that we will hold hearings, my committee will hold hearings and I hope 
the gentleman will testify before that hearing.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. With that assurance, Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Moran] is withdrawn.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I had intended to come and speak in favor of the 
amendment. I would now speak in favor of the demonstration project idea 
if the amendment is to be withdrawn. I was the chairman of the Missouri 
Housing Development Commission for some time. We worked with housing 
authorities. We had even in 1985 a billion dollars in bonded 
obligations to assist with housing.
  I think we stand here today with a housing program that is well-
intentioned but has failed. It has become a place where people go and 
stay not because of disability or age or infirmity, but because of no 
sense of being able to leave that system or having to leave that 
system.
  I think the idea of rotating people in and out of public housing, 
being sure that all people have access to public housing that would 
qualify for public housing, and also effectively giving notice to 
people who move into public housing on the first day that they are 
likely not there to stay, that there is some end in sight to their 
being in that particular subsidized environment, is a positive aspect.
  I think the problems we see in public housing with crime, with a lack 
of role model, with a life based on that kind of dependence on a 
government program, is largely eliminated by the concept that the 
gentleman from Virginia has offered as an amendment and now offers as a 
pilot program, that we look to see what would happen if, in fact, 
people are on a list, not only a waiting list for public housing, but a 
list that would have some opportunity to really become part of that 
system, a system where people are moving in and out as they move toward 
more and more independence; a system which, as the bill of the 
gentleman from New York, allows people to seek greater economic 
opportunity without being penalized for that opportunity by agreeing to 
a fixed rent instead of 30 percent of their income. Whatever their 
income is, of course, they would still have that option.
  I think we see a housing program, again, that was well-intentioned, 
that has not worked as it should work. It is time to make that program 
work better. And under this proposal, this is not a proposal that 
eliminates funding for public housing. In fact, this is a proposal that 
substantially increases funding for public housing. It just makes a 
commitment for housing that works better; makes a commitment for 
housing that does not lead to the many problems that people that are in 
public housing today have been victims of.
  I think the bill is a good bill. I thought the amendment was a good 
amendment. I want to speak in favor of the gentleman's idea that there 
be a pilot in this bill that would allow that to become part of what we 
are trying to do in housing and let us see if it works, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
for his remarks, his insight and for sharing his experience with the 
Missouri Housing Authority with us. I thank the gentleman for his 
remarks.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments to title II, the 
Clerk will designate title III.
  The text of title III is as follows:

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

                         Subtitle A--Allocation

     SEC. 301. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE HOUSING ASSISTANCE AMOUNTS.

       To the extent that amounts to carry out this title are made 
     available, the Secretary may enter into contracts with public 
     housing agencies for each fiscal year to provide housing 
     assistance under this title.

     SEC. 302. CONTRACTS WITH PHA'S.

       (a) Condition of Assistance.--The Secretary may provide 
     amounts under this title to a public housing agency for a 
     fiscal year only if the Secretary has entered into a contract 
     under this section with the public housing agency, under 
     which the Secretary shall provide such agency with amounts 
     (in the amount of the allocation for the agency determined 
     pursuant to section 304) for housing assistance under this 
     title for low-income families.
       (b) Use for Housing Assistance.--A contract under this 
     section shall require a public housing agency to use amounts 
     provided under this title to provide housing assistance in 
     any manner authorized under this title.
       (c) Annual Obligation of Authority.--A contract under this 
     title shall provide amounts for housing assistance for 1 
     fiscal year covered by the contract.
       (d) Enforcement of Housing Quality Requirements.--Each 
     contract under this section shall require the public housing 
     agency administering assistance provided under the contract--
       (1) to ensure compliance, under each housing assistance 
     payments contract entered into pursuant to the contract under 
     this section, with the provisions of the housing assistance 
     payments contract included pursuant to section 351(c)(4); and
       (2) to establish procedures for assisted families to notify 
     the agency of any noncompliance with such provisions.

[[Page H2276]]

     SEC. 303. ELIGIBILITY OF PHA'S FOR ASSISTANCE AMOUNTS.

       The Secretary may provide amounts available for housing 
     assistance under this title pursuant to the formula 
     established under section 304(a) to a public housing agency 
     only if--
       (1) the agency has submitted a local housing management 
     plan to the Secretary for such fiscal year and applied to the 
     Secretary for such assistance;
       (2) the plan has been determined to comply with the 
     requirements under section 106 and the Secretary has not 
     notified the agency that the plan fails to comply with such 
     requirements;
       (3) no member of the board of directors or other governing 
     body of the agency, or the executive director, has been 
     convicted of a felony; and
       (4) the agency has not been disqualified for assistance 
     pursuant to title V.

     SEC. 304. ALLOCATION OF AMOUNTS.

       (a) Formula Allocation.--
       (1) In general.--When amounts for assistance under this 
     title are first made available for reservation, after 
     reserving amounts in accordance with subsections (b)(3) and 
     (c), the Secretary shall allocate such amounts, only among 
     public housing agencies meeting the requirements under this 
     title to receive such assistance, on the basis of a formula 
     that is established in accordance with paragraph (2) and 
     based upon appropriate criteria to reflect the needs of 
     different States, areas, and communities, using the most 
     recent data available from the Bureau of the Census of the 
     Department of Commerce and the comprehensive housing 
     affordability strategy under section 105 of the Cranston-
     Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (or any consolidated 
     plan incorporating such strategy) for the applicable 
     jurisdiction. The Secretary may establish a minimum 
     allocation amount, in which case only the public housing 
     agencies that, pursuant to the formula, are provided an 
     amount equal to or greater than the minimum allocation 
     amount, shall receive an allocation.
       (2) Regulations.--The formula under this subsection shall 
     be established by regulation issued by the Secretary. 
     Notwithstanding sections 563(a) and 565(a) of title 5, United 
     States Code, any proposed regulation containing such formula 
     shall be issued pursuant to a negotiated rulemaking procedure 
     under subchapter III of chapter 5 of such title and the 
     Secretary shall establish a negotiated rulemaking committee 
     for development of any such proposed regulations.
       (b) Allocation Considerations.--
       (1) Limitation on reallocation for another state.--Any 
     amounts allocated for a State or areas or communities within 
     a State that are not likely to be used within the fiscal year 
     for which the amounts are provided shall not be reallocated 
     for use in another State, unless the Secretary determines 
     that other areas or communities within the same State (that 
     are eligible for amounts under this title) cannot use the 
     amounts within the same fiscal year.
       (2) Effect of receipt of tenant-based assistance for 
     disabled families.--The Secretary may not consider the 
     receipt by a public housing agency of assistance under 
     section 811(b)(1) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National 
     Affordable Housing Act, or the amount received, in approving 
     amounts under this title for the agency or in determining the 
     amount of such assistance to be provided to the agency.
       (3) Exemption from formula allocation.--The formula 
     allocation requirements of subsection (a) shall not apply to 
     any assistance under this title that is approved in 
     appropriation Acts of uses that the Secretary determines are 
     incapable of geographic allocation, including amendments of 
     existing housing assistance payments contracts, renewal of 
     such contracts, assistance to families that would otherwise 
     lose assistance due to the decision of the project owner to 
     prepay the project mortgage or not to renew the housing 
     assistant payments contract, assistance to prevent 
     displacement from public or assisted housing or to provide 
     replacement housing in connection with the demolition or 
     disposition of public housing, assistance for relocation from 
     public housing, assistance in connection with protection of 
     crime witnesses, assistance for conversion from leased 
     housing contracts under section 23 of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before the enactment of the 
     Housing and Community Development Act of 1974), and 
     assistance in support of the property disposition and 
     portfolio management functions of the Secretary.
       (c) Recapture of Amounts.--
       (1) Authority.--In each fiscal year, from any budget 
     authority made available for assistance under this title or 
     section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in 
     effect before the effective date of the repeal under section 
     601(b) of this Act) that is obligated to a public housing 
     agency but remains unobligated by the agency upon the 
     expiration of the 8-month period beginning upon the initial 
     availability of such amounts for obligation by the agency, 
     the Secretary may deobligate an amount, as determined by the 
     Secretary, not exceeding 50 percent of such unobligated 
     amount.
       (2) Use.--The Secretary may reallocate and transfer any 
     amounts deobligated under paragraph (1) only to public 
     housing agencies in areas that the Secretary determines have 
     received less funding than other areas, based on the relative 
     needs of all areas.

     SEC. 305. ADMINISTRATIVE FEES.

       (a) Fee for Ongoing Costs of Administration.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish fees for the 
     costs of administering the choice-based housing assistance 
     program under this title.
       (2) Fiscal year 1998.--
       (A) Calculation.--For fiscal year 1998, the fee for each 
     month for which a dwelling unit is covered by a contract for 
     assistance under this title shall be--
       (i) in the case of a public housing agency that, on an 
     annual basis, is administering a program for not more than 
     600 dwelling units, 7.65 percent of the base amount; and
       (ii) in the case of an agency that, on an annual basis, is 
     administering a program for more than 600 dwelling units--
       (I) for the first 600 units, 7.65 percent of the base 
     amount; and
       (II) for any additional dwelling units under the program, 
     7.0 percent of the base amount.
       (B) Base amount.--For purposes of this paragraph, the base 
     amount shall be the higher of--
       (i) the fair market rental established under section 8(c) 
     of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect 
     immediately before the effective date of the repeal under 
     section 601(b) of this Act) for fiscal year 1993 for a 2-
     bedroom existing rental dwelling unit in the market area of 
     the agency, and
       (ii) the amount that is the lesser of (I) such fair market 
     rental for fiscal year 1994 or (II) 103.5 percent of the 
     amount determined under clause (i),

     adjusted based on changes in wage data or other objectively 
     measurable data that reflect the costs of administering the 
     program, as determined by the Secretary. The Secretary may 
     require that the base amount be not less than a minimum 
     amount and not more than a maximum amount.
       (3) Subsequent fiscal years.--For subsequent fiscal years, 
     the Secretary shall publish a notice in the Federal Register, 
     for each geographic area, establishing the amount of the fee 
     that would apply for public housing agencies administering 
     the program, based on changes in wage data or other 
     objectively measurable data that reflect the costs of 
     administering the program, as determined by the Secretary.
       (4) Increase.--The Secretary may increase the fee is 
     necessary to reflect the higher costs of administering small 
     programs and programs operating over large geographic areas.
       (b) Fee for Preliminary Expenses.--The Secretary shall also 
     establish reasonable fees (as determined by the Secretary) 
     for--
       (1) the costs of preliminary expenses, in the amount of 
     $500, for a public housing agency, but only in the first year 
     that the agency administers a choice-based housing assistance 
     program under this title, and only if, immediately before the 
     effective date of this Act, the agency was not administering 
     a tenant-based rental assistance program under the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect immediately before 
     such effective date), in connection with its initial 
     increment of assistance received;
       (2) the costs incurred in assisting families who experience 
     difficulty (as determined by the Secretary) in obtaining 
     appropriate housing under the programs; and
       (3) extraordinary costs approved by the Secretary.
       (c) Transfer of Fees in Cases of Concurrent Geographical 
     Jurisdiction.--In each fiscal year, if any public housing 
     agency provides tenant-based rental assistance under section 
     8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 or housing 
     assistance under this title on behalf of a family who uses 
     such assistance for a dwelling unit that is located within 
     the jurisdictional of such agency but is also within the 
     jurisdiction of another public housing agency, the Secretary 
     shall take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that the 
     public housing agency that provides the services for a family 
     receives all or part of the administrative fee under this 
     section (as appropriate).

     SEC. 306. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated for 
     providing public housing assistance under this title, such 
     sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 1998, 2000, 
     2001, and 2002 to provide amounts for incremental assistance 
     under this title, for renewal of expiring contracts under 
     section 302 of this Act and renewal under this title of 
     expiring contracts for tenant-based rental assistance under 
     section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in 
     effect the effective date of the repeal under section 601(b) 
     of this Act), and for replacement needs for public housing 
     under title II.
       (b) Assistance for Disabled Families.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated, for choice-based housing assistance under 
     this title to be used in accordance with paragraph (2), 
     $50,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each subsequent fiscal year.
       (2) Use.--The Secretary shall provide amounts made 
     available under paragraph (1) to public housing agencies only 
     for use to provide housing assistance under this title for 
     nonelderly disabled families (including such families 
     relocating pursuant to designation of a public housing 
     development under section 227 or the establishment of 
     occupancy restrictions in accordance with section 658 of the 
     Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 and other 
     nonelderly disabled families who have applied to the agency 
     for housing assistance under this title).

[[Page H2277]]

       (3) Allocation of amounts.--The Secretary shall allocate 
     and provide amounts made available under paragraph (1) to 
     public housing agencies as the Secretary determines 
     appropriate based on the relative levels of need among the 
     authorities for assistance for families described in 
     paragraph (1).
       (c) Assistance for Witness Relocation.--Of the amounts made 
     available for choice-based housing assistance under this 
     title for each fiscal year, the Secretary, in consultation 
     with the Inspector General, shall make available such sums as 
     may be necessary for such housing assistance for the 
     relocation of witnesses in connection with efforts to combat 
     crime in public and assisted housing pursuant to requests 
     from law enforcement and prosecutive agencies.

     SEC. 307. CONVERSION OF SECTION 8 ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Any amounts made available to a public 
     housing agency under a contract for annual contributions for 
     assistance under section 8 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 have not been 
     obligated for such assistance by such agency before such 
     effective date shall be used to provide assistance under this 
     title, except to the extent the Secretary determines such use 
     is inconsistent with existing commitments.
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any 
     amounts made available under a contract for housing 
     constructed or substantially rehabilitated pursuant to 
     section 8(b)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as 
     in effect before October 1, 1983.

     SEC. 308. RECAPTURE AND REUSE OF ANNUAL CONTRACT PROJECT 
                   RESERVES UNDER CHOICE-BASED HOUSING ASSISTANCE 
                   AND SECTION 8 TENANT-BASED ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

       To the extent that the Secretary determines that the amount 
     in the reserve account for annual contributions contracts 
     (for housing assistance under this title or tenant-based 
     assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937) that is under contract with a public housing agency 
     for such assistance is in excess of the amounts needed by the 
     agency, the Secretary shall recapture such excess amount. The 
     Secretary may hold recaptured amounts in reserve until needed 
     to enter into, amend, or renew contracts under this title or 
     to amend or renew contracts under section 8 of such Act for 
     tenant-based assistance with any agency.

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

     SEC. 321. ELIGIBLE FAMILIES AND PREFERENCES FOR ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Low-Income Requirement.--Housing assistance under this 
     title may be provided only on behalf of a family that--
       (1) at the time that such assistance is initially provided 
     on behalf of the family, is determined by the public housing 
     agency to be a low-income family; or
       (2) qualifies to receive such assistance under any other 
     provision of Federal law.
       (b) Income Targeting.--Of the families initially assisted 
     under this title by a public housing agency in any year, not 
     less than 40 percent shall be families whose incomes do not 
     exceed 30 percent of the area median income, as determined by 
     the Secretary with adjustments for smaller and larger 
     families. The Secretary may establish income ceiling higher 
     or lower than 30 percent of the area median income on the 
     basis of the Secretary's findings that such variations are 
     necessary because of unusually high or low family incomes.
       (c) Reviews of Family Incomes.--
       (1) In general.--Reviews of family incomes for purposes of 
     this title shall be subject to the provisions of section 904 
     of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Amendments Act 
     of 1988 and shall be conducted upon the initial provision of 
     housing assistance for the family and thereafter not less 
     than annually.
       (2) Procedures.--Each public housing agency administering 
     housing assistance under this title shall establish 
     procedures that are appropriate and necessary to ensure that 
     income data provided to the agency and owners by families 
     applying for or receiving housing assistance from the agency 
     is complete and accurate.
       (d) Preferences for Assistance.--
       (1) Authority to establish.--Any public housing agency that 
     receives amounts under this title may establish a system for 
     making housing assistance available on behalf of eligible 
     families that provides preference for such assistance to 
     eligible families having certain characteristics.
       (2) Content.--Each system of preferences established 
     pursuant to this subsection shall be based upon local housing 
     needs and priorities, as determined by the 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.
       (3) 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.
       (e) Portability of Housing Assistance.--
       (1) National portability.--An eligible family that is 
     selected to receive or is receiving assistance under this 
     title may rent any eligible dwelling unit in any area where a 
     program is being administered under this title. 
     Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a public housing 
     agency may require that any family not living within the 
     jurisdiction of the public housing agency at the time the 
     family applies for assistance from the agency shall, during 
     the 12-month period beginning on the date of initial receipt 
     of housing assistance made available on behalf of the family 
     from such agency, lease and occupy an eligible dwelling unit 
     located within the jurisdiction served by the agency. The 
     agency for the jurisdiction into which the family moves shall 
     have the responsibility for administering assistance for the 
     family.
       (2) Source of funding for a family that moves.--For a 
     family that has moved into the jurisdiction of a public 
     housing agency and that, at the time of the move, has been 
     selected to receive, or is receiving, assistance provided by 
     another agency, the agency for the jurisdiction into which 
     the family has moved may, in its discretion, cover the cost 
     of assisting the family under its contract with the Secretary 
     or through reimbursement from the other agency under that 
     agency's contract.
       (3) Authority to deny assistance to certain families who 
     move.--A family may not receive housing assistance as 
     provided under this subsection if the family has moved from a 
     dwelling unit in violation of the lease for the dwelling 
     unit.
       (4) Funding allocations.--In providing assistance amounts 
     under this title for public housing agencies for any fiscal 
     year, the Secretary may give consideration to any reduction 
     or increase in the number of resident families under the 
     program of an agency in the preceding fiscal year as a result 
     of this subsection.
       (f) 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 receiving housing assistance who 
     was a victim of domestic violence that are applicable to 
     shelters pursuant to the Family Violence Prevention and 
     Services Act. The 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.

     SEC. 322. RESIDENT CONTRIBUTION.

       (a) Amount.--
       (1) Monthly rent contribution.--An assisted family shall 
     contribute on a monthly basis for the rental of an assisted 
     dwelling unit an amount that the public housing agency 
     determines is appropriate with respect to the family and the 
     unit, but which--
       (A) shall not be less than the minimum monthly rental 
     contribution determined under subsection (b); and
       (B) shall not exceed the greatest of--
       (i) 30 percent of the monthly adjusted income of the 
     family;
       (ii) 10 percent of the monthly income of the family; and
       (iii) 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.
       (2) Excess rental amount. In any case in which the monthly 
     rent charged for a dwelling unit pursuant to the housing 
     assistance payments contract exceeds the applicable payment 
     standard (established under section 353) for the dwelling 
     unit, the assisted family residing in the unit shall 
     contribute (in addition to the amount of the monthly rent 
     contribution otherwise determined under paragraph (1) for 
     such family) such entire excess rental amount.
       (b) Minimum Monthly Rental Contribution.--
       (1) In general.--The public housing agency shall determine 
     the amount of the minimum monthly rental contribution of an 
     assisted family (which rent shall include any amount allowed 
     for utilities), which--
       (A) shall be based upon factors including the adjusted 
     income of the family and any other factors that the agency 
     considers appropriate;
       (B) shall be not less than $25, nor more than $50; and
       (C) may be increased annually by the agency, except that no 
     such annual increase may exceed 10 percent of the amount of 
     the minimum monthly contribution in effect for the preceding 
     year.
       (2) Hardship provisions.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a public 
     housing agency shall grant an exemption in whole or in part 
     from payment of the minimum monthly rental contribution 
     established under this paragraph to any assisted family 
     unable to pay such amount because of 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 
     imposition of the minimum rent; (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 an assisted family requests a 
     hardship exemption under this paragraph and the public 
     housing agency reasonably determines the hardship to be of

[[Page H2278]]

     a temporary nature, an exemption shall not be granted during 
     the 90-day period beginning upon the making of a request for 
     the exemption. An assisted family may not be evicted during 
     such 90-day period for nonpayment of rent. In such a case, if 
     the assisted family thereafter demonstrates that the 
     financial hardship is of a long-term basis, the agency shall 
     retroactively exempt the family from the applicability of the 
     minimum rent requirement for such 90-day period.
       (c) Treatment of Changes in Rental Contribution.--
       (1) Notification of changes.--A public housing agency shall 
     promptly notify the owner of an assisted dwelling unit of any 
     change in the resident contribution by the assisted family 
     residing in the unit that takes effect immediately or at a 
     later date.
       (2) Collection of retroactive changes.--In the case of any 
     change in the rental contribution of an assisted family that 
     affects rental payments previously made, the public housing 
     agency shall collect any additional amounts required to be 
     paid by the family under such change directly from the family 
     and shall refund any excess rental contribution paid by the 
     family directly to the family.
       (d) Phase-In of Rent Contribution Increases.--
       (1) In General.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), for 
     any family that is receiving tenant-based rental assistance 
     under section 8 of the United Stats Housing Act of 1937 upon 
     the initial applicability of the provisions of this title to 
     such family, if the monthly contribution for rental of an 
     assisted dwelling unit to be paid by the family upon such 
     initial applicability is greater than the amount paid by the 
     family under the provisions of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 immediately before such applicability, any such 
     resulting increase in rent contribution shall be--
       (A) phased in equally over a period of not less than 3 
     years, if such increase is 30 percent or more of such 
     contribution before initial applicability; and
       (B) limited to not more than 10 percent per year if such 
     increase is more than 10 percent but less than 30 percent of 
     such contribution before initial applicability.
       (2) Exception.--The minimum rent contribution requirement 
     under subsection (b)(1) shall apply to each family described 
     in paragraph (1) of this subsection, notwithstanding such 
     paragraph.

     SEC. 323. RENTAL INDICATORS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish and issue 
     rental indicators under this section periodically, but not 
     less than annually, for existing rental dwelling units that 
     are eligible dwelling units. The Secretary shall establish 
     and issue the rental indicators by housing market area (as 
     the Secretary shall establish) for various sizes and types of 
     dwelling units.
       (b) Amount.--For a market area, the rental indicator 
     established under subsection (a) for a dwelling unit of a 
     particular size and type in the market area shall be a dollar 
     amount that reflects the rental amount for a standard quality 
     rental unit of such size and type in the market area that is 
     an eligible dwelling unit.
       (c) Effective Date.--The Secretary shall cause the proposed 
     rental indicators established under subsection (a) for each 
     market area to be published in the Federal Register with 
     reasonable time for public comment, and such rental 
     indicators shall become effective upon the date of 
     publication in final form in the Federal Register.
       (d) Annual Adjustment.--Eash rental indicator in effect 
     under this section shall be adjusted to be effective on 
     October 1 of each year to reflect changes, based on the most 
     recent available data trended so that the indicators will be 
     current for the year to which they apply, in rents for 
     existing rental dwelling units of various sizes and types in 
     the market area suitable for occupancy by families assisted 
     under this title.

     SEC. 324. LEASE TERMS.

       Rental assistance may be provided for an eligible dwelling 
     unit only if the assisted family and the owner of the 
     dwelling unit enter into a lease for the unit that--
       (1) provides for a single lease term of 12 months and 
     continued tenancy after such term under a periodic tenancy on 
     a month-to-month basis;
       (2) contains terms and conditions specifying that 
     termination of tenancy during the term of a lease shall be 
     subject to the provisions set forth in sections 642 and 643; 
     and
       (3) is set forth in the standard form, which is used in the 
     local housing market area by the owner and applies generally 
     to any other tenants in the property who are not assisted 
     families, together with any addendum necessary to include the 
     many terms required under this section.

     A lease may include any addenda appropriate to set forth the 
     provisions under this title.

     SEC. 325. TERMINATION OF TENANCY.

       Each housing assistance payments contract shall provide 
     that the owner shall conduct the termination of tenancy of 
     any tenant of an assisted dwelling unit under the contract in 
     accordance with applicable State or local laws, including 
     providing any notice of termination required under such laws.

     SEC. 326. ELIGIBLE OWNERS.

       (a) Ownership Entity.--Rental assistance under this title 
     maybe provided for any eligible dwelling unit for which the 
     owner is any public agency, private person or entity 
     (including a cooperative), nonprofit organization, agency of 
     the Federal Government, or public housing agency.
       (b) Ineligible Owners.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), a public 
     housing agency--
       (A) may not enter into a housing assistance payments 
     contract (or renew an existing contract) covering a dwelling 
     unit that is owned by an owner who is debarred, suspended, or 
     subject to limited denial of participation under part 24 of 
     title 24, Code of Federal Regulations;
       (B) may prohibit, or authorize the termination or 
     suspension of, payment of housing assistance under a housing 
     assistance payments contract in effect at the time such 
     debarment, suspension, or limited denial or participation 
     takes effect.

     If the public housing agency takes action under subparagraph 
     (B), the agency shall take such actions as may be necessary 
     to protect assisted families who are affected by the action, 
     which may include the provision of additional assistance 
     under this title to such families.
       (2) Prohibition of sale or rental to related parties.--The 
     Secretary shall establish guidelines to prevent housing 
     assistance payments for a dwelling unit that is owned by any 
     spouse, child, or other party who allows an owner described 
     in paragraph (1) to maintain control of the unit.

     SEC. 327. SELECTION OF DWELLING UNITS.

       (a) Family Choice.--The determination of the dwelling unit 
     in which an assisted family resides and for which housing 
     assistance is provided under this title shall be made solely 
     by the assisted family, subject to the provisions of this 
     title and any applicable law.
       (b) Deed Restrictions.--Housing assistance may not be used 
     in any manner that abrogates any local deed restriction that 
     applies to any housing consisting of 1 to 4 dwelling units. 
     Nothing in this section may be construed to affect the 
     provisions of applicability of the Fair Housing Act.

     SEC. 328. ELIGIBLE DWELLING UNITS.

       (a) In General.--A dwelling unit shall be an eligible 
     dwelling unit for purposes of this title only if the public 
     housing agency to provide housing assistance for the dwelling 
     unit determines that the dwelling unit--
       (1) is an existing dwelling unit that is not located within 
     a nursing home or the grounds of any penal, reformatory, 
     medical, mental, or similar public or private institution; 
     and
       (2) complies--
       (A) in the case of a dwelling unit 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
       (B) in the case of a dwelling unit located in a 
     jurisdiction which does not have in effect laws, regulations, 
     standards, or codes described in subparagraph (A), with the 
     housing quality standards established under subsection (c).

     Each public housing agency providing housing assistance shall 
     identify, in the local housing management plan for the 
     agency, whether the agency is utilizing the standard under 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (2).
       (b) Determinations.--
       (1) In general.--A public housing agency shall make the 
     determinations required under subsection (a) pursuant to an 
     inspection of the dwelling unit conducted before any 
     assistance payment is made for the unit.
       (2) Expeditious inspection.--Inspections of dwelling units 
     under this subsection shall be made before the expiration of 
     the 15-day period beginning upon a request by the resident or 
     landlord to the public housing agency. The performance of the 
     agency in meeting the 15-day inspection deadline shall be 
     taken into account in assessing the performance of the 
     agency.
       (c) Federal Housing Quality Standards.--The Secretary shall 
     establish housing quality standards under this subsection 
     that ensure that assisted dwelling units are safe, clean, and 
     healthy. Such standards shall include requirements relating 
     to habitability, including maintenance, health and sanitation 
     factors, condition, and construction of dwellings, and shall, 
     to the greatest extent practicable, be consistent with the 
     standards established under section 232(b). The Secretary 
     shall differentiate between major and minor violations of 
     such standards.
       (d) Annual Inspections.--Each public housing agency 
     providing housing assistance shall make an annual inspection 
     of each assisted dwelling unit during the term of the housing 
     assistance payments contracts for the unit to determine 
     whether the unit is maintained in accordance with the 
     requirements under subsection (a)(2). The agency shall retain 
     the records of the inspection for a reasonable time and shall 
     make the records available upon request to the Secretary, the 
     Inspector General for the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development, and any auditor conducting an audit under 
     section 541.
       (e) Inspection Guidelines.--The Secretary shall establish 
     procedural guidelines and performance standards to facilitate 
     inspections of dwelling units and conform such inspections 
     with practices utilized in the private housing market. Such 
     guidelines and standards shall take into consideration 
     variations in local laws and practices of public housing 
     agencies and shall provide flexibility to authorities 
     appropriate to facilitate efficient provision of assistance 
     under this title.

[[Page H2279]]

       (f) Rule of Construction.--This section may not be 
     construed to prevent the provision of housing assistance in 
     connection with supportive services for elderly or disabled 
     families.

     SEC. 329. HOMEOWNERSHIP OPTION.

       (a) In General.--A public housing agency providing housing 
     assistance under this title may provide homeownership 
     assistance to assist eligible families to purchase a dwelling 
     unit (including purchase under lease-purchase homeownership 
     plans).
       (b) Requirements.--A public housing agency providing 
     homeownership assistance under this section shall, as a 
     condition of an eligible family receiving such assistance, 
     require the family to--
       (1) demonstrate that the family has sufficient income from 
     employment or other sources (other than public assistance), 
     as determined in accordance with requirements established by 
     the agency; and
       (2) meet any other initial or continuing requirements 
     established by the public housing agency.
       (c) Downpayment Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--A public housing agency may establish 
     minimum downpayment requirements, if appropriate, in 
     connection with loans made for the purchase of dwelling units 
     for which homeownership assistance is provided under this 
     section. If the agency establishes a minimum downpayment 
     requirement, 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, subject to the requirement of paragraph (2).
       (2) Direct family contribution.--In purchasing housing 
     pursuant to this section subject to a downpayment 
     requirement, each family shall contribute an amount of the 
     downpayment, from resources of the family other than grants, 
     gifts, contributions, or other similar amounts referred to in 
     paragraph (1), that is not less than 1 percent of the 
     purchase price.
       (d) Ineligibility Under Other Programs.--A family may not 
     receive homeownership assistance pursuant to this section 
     during any period when assistance is being provided for the 
     family under other Federal homwownership assistance programs, 
     as determined by the Secretary, including assistance under 
     the HOME Investment Partnerships Act, the Homeownership and 
     Opportunity Through HOPE Act, title II of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1987, and section 502 of the 
     Housing Act of 1949.

     SEC. 330. ASSISTANCE FOR RENTAL OR MANUFACTURED HOMES.

       (a) Authority.--Nothing in this title may be construed to 
     prevent a public housing agency from providing housing 
     assistance under this title on behalf of a low-income family 
     for the rental of--
       (1) a manufactured home that is the principal residence of 
     the family and the real property on which the home is 
     located; or
       (2) the real property on which is located a manufactured 
     home, which is owned by the family and is the principal 
     residence of the family.
       (b) Assistance for Certain Families Owning Manufactured 
     Homes.--
       (1) Authority.--Notwithstanding section 351 or any other 
     provision of this title, a public housing agency that 
     receives amounts under a contract under section 302 may enter 
     into a housing assistance payment contract to make assistance 
     payments under this title to a family that owns a 
     manufactured home, but only as provided in paragraph (2).
       (2) Limitations.--In the case only of a low-income family 
     that owns a manufactured home, rents the real property on 
     which it is located, and to whom housing assistance under 
     this title has been made available for the rental of such 
     property, the public housing agency making such assistance 
     available shall enter into a contract to make housing 
     assistance payments under this title directly to the family 
     (rather than to the owner of such real property) if--
       (A) the owner of the real property refuses to enter into a 
     contract to receive housing assistance payments pursuant to 
     section 351(a);
       (B) the family was residing in such manufactured home on 
     such real property at the time such housing assistance was 
     initially made available on behalf of the family;
       (C) the family provides such assurances to the agency, as 
     the Secretary may require, to ensure that amounts from the 
     housing assistance payments are used for rental of the real 
     property; and
       (D) the rental of the real property otherwise complies with 
     the requirements for assistance under this title.

     A contract pursuant to this subsection shall be subject to 
     the provisions of section 351 and any other provisions 
     applicable to housing assistance payments contracts under 
     this title, except that the Secretary may provide such 
     exceptions as the Secretary considers appropriate to 
     facilitate the provisions of assistance under this 
     subsection.

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

     SEC. 351. HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS CONTRACTS.

       (a) In General.--Each public housing agency that received 
     amounts under a contract under section 302 may enter into 
     housing assistance payments contracts with owners of existing 
     dwelling units to make housing assistance payments to such 
     owners in accordance with this title.
       (b) PHA Acting As Owner.--A public housing agency may enter 
     into a housing assistance payments contract to make housing 
     assistance payments under this title to itself (or any agency 
     or instrumentality thereof) as the owner of dwelling units 
     (other than public housing), and the agency shall be subject 
     to the same requirements that are applicable to other owners, 
     except that the determinations under section 328(a) and 
     354(b) shall be made by a competent party not affiliated with 
     the agency, and the agency shall be responsible for any 
     expenses of such determinations.
       (c) Provisions.--Each housing assistance payments contract 
     shall--
       (1) have a term of not more than 12 months;
       (2) require that the assisted dwelling unit may be rented 
     only pursuant to a lease that complies with the requirements 
     of section 324;
       (3) comply with the requirements of sections 325, 642, and 
     643 (relating to termination of tenancy);
       (4) require the owner to maintain the dwelling unit in 
     accordance with the applicable standards under section 
     328(a)(2); and
       (5) provide that the screening and selection of eligible 
     families for assisted dwelling units shall be the function of 
     the owner.

     SEC 352. AMOUNT OF MONTHLY ASSISTANCE PAYMENT.

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

     For purposes of this section, in the case of a family 
     receiving homeownership assistance under section 329, the 
     term ``gross rent'' shall mean the homeownership costs to the 
     family as determined in accordance with guidelines of the 
     Secretary.

     SEC. 353. PAYMENT STANDARDS.

       (a) Establishment.--Each public housing agency providing 
     housing assistance under this title shall establish payment 
     standards under this section for various areas, and sizes and 
     types of dwelling units, for use in determining the amount of 
     monthly housing assistance payment to be provided on behalf 
     of assisted families.
       (b) Use of Rental Indicators.--The payment standard for 
     each size and type of housing for each market area shall be 
     an amount that is not less than 80 percent, and not greater 
     than 120 percent, of the rental indicator established under 
     section 323 for such size and type for such area.
       (c) Review.--If the Secretary determines, at any time, that 
     a significant percentage of the assisted families who are 
     assisted by a public housing agency and are occupying 
     dwelling units of a particular size are paying more than 30 
     percent of their adjusted incomes for rent, the Secretary 
     shall review the payment standard established by the agency 
     for such size dwellings. If, pursuant to the review, the 
     Secretary determines that such payment standard is not 
     appropriate to serve the needs of the low-income population 
     of the jurisdiction served by the agency (taking into 
     consideration rental costs in the area), as identified in the 
     approved community improvement plan of the agency, the 
     Secretary may require the public housing agency to modify the 
     payment standard.

     SEC. 354. REASONABLE RENTS.

       (a) Establishment.--The rent charged for a dwelling unit 
     for which rental assistance is provided under this title 
     shall be established pursuant to negotiation and agreement 
     between the assisted family and the owner of the dwelling 
     unit.

[[Page H2280]]

       (b) Reasonableness.--
       (1) Determination.--A public housing agency providing 
     rental assistance under this title for a dwelling unit shall, 
     before commencing assistance payments for a unit (with 
     respect to initial contract rents and any rent revisions), 
     determine whether the rent charged for the unit exceeds the 
     rents charged for comparable units in the applicable private 
     unassisted market.
       (2) Unreasonable rents.--If the agency determines that the 
     rent charged for a dwelling unit exceeds such comparable 
     rents, the agency shall--
       (A) inform the assisted family renting the unit that such 
     rent exceeds the rents for comparable unassisted units in the 
     markets; and
       (B) refuse to provide housing assistance payments for such 
     unit.

     SEC. 355. PROHIBITION OF ASSISTANCE FOR VACANT RENTAL UNITS.

       If an assisted family vacates a dwelling unit for which 
     rental assistance is provided under a housing assistance 
     payments contract before the expiration of the term of the 
     lease for the unit, rental assistance pursuant to such 
     contract may not be provided for the unit after the month 
     during which the unit was vacated.

            Subtitle D--General and Miscellaneous Provisions

     SEC. 371. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title:
       (1) Assisted dwelling unit.--The term ``assisted dwelling 
     unit'' means a dwelling unit in which an assisted family 
     resides and for which housing assistance payments are made 
     under this title.
       (2) Assisted family.--The term ``assisted family'' means an 
     eligible family on whose behalf housing assistance payments 
     are made under this title or who has been selected and 
     approved for housing assistance.
       (3) Choice-based.--The term ``choice-based'' means, with 
     respect to housing assistance, that the assistance is not 
     attached to a dwelling unit but can be used for any eligible 
     dwelling unit selected by the eligible family.
       (4) Eligible dwelling unit.--The term ``eligible dwelling 
     unit'' means a dwelling unit that complies with the 
     requirements under section 328 for consideration as an 
     eligible dwelling unit.
       (5) Eligible family.--The term ``eligible family'' means a 
     family that meets the requirements under section 321(a) for 
     assistance under this title.
       (6) Homeownership assistance.--The term ``homeownership 
     assistance'' means housing assistance provided under section 
     329 for the ownership of a dwelling unit.
       (7) Housing assistance.--The term ``housing assistance'' 
     means choice-based assistance provided under this title on 
     behalf of low-income families for the rental or ownership of 
     an eligible dwelling unit.
       (8) Housing assistance payments contract.--The term 
     ``housing assistance payments contract'' means a contract 
     under section 351 between a public housing agency (or the 
     Secretary) and an owner to make housing assistance payments 
     under this title to the owner on behalf of an assisted 
     family.
       (9) Public housing agency.--The terms ``public housing 
     agency'' and ``agency'' have the meaning given such terms in 
     section 103, except that the terms include--
       (A) a consortia of public housing agencies that the 
     Secretary determines has the capacity and capability to 
     administer a program for housing assistance under this title 
     in an efficient manner;
       (B) any other entity that, upon the effective date of this 
     Act, was administering any program for tenant-based rental 
     assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 (as in effect before the effective date of the repeal 
     under section 601(b) of this Act), pursuant to a contract 
     with the Secretary or a public housing agency; and
       (C) with respect to any area in which no public housing 
     agency has been organized or where the Secretary determines 
     that a public housing agency is unwilling or unable to 
     implement this title, or is not performing effectively--
       (i) the Secretary or another entity that by contract agrees 
     to receive assistance amounts under this title and enter into 
     housing assistance payments contracts with owners and 
     perform the other functions of public housing agency under 
     this title; or
       (ii) notwithstanding any provision of State or local law, a 
     public housing agency for another area that contracts with 
     the Secretary to administer a program for housing assistance 
     under this title, without regard to any otherwise applicable 
     limitations on its area of operation.
       (10) Owner.--The term ``owner'' means the person or entity 
     having the legal right to lease or sublease dwelling units. 
     Such term includes any principals, general partners, primary 
     shareholders, and other similar participants in any entity 
     owning a multifamily housing project, as well as the entity 
     itself.
       (11) Rent.--The terms ``rent'' and ``rental'' include, with 
     respect to members of a cooperative, the charges under the 
     occupancy agreements between such members and the 
     cooperative.
       (12) Rental assistance.--The term ``rental assistance'' 
     means housing assistance provided under this title for the 
     rental of a dwelling unit.

     SEC. 372. RENTAL ASSISTANCE FRAUD RECOVERIES.

       (a) Authority To Retain Recovered Amounts.--The Secretary 
     shall permit public housing agencies administering housing 
     assistance under this title to retain, out of amounts 
     obtained by the authorities from tenants that are due as a 
     result of fraud and abuse, an amount (determined in 
     accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary) equal to 
     the greater of--
       (1) 50 percent of the amount actually collected; or
       (2) the actual, reasonable, and necessary expenses related 
     to the collection, including costs of investigation, legal 
     fees, and collection agency fees.
       (b) Use.--Amounts retained by an agency shall be made 
     available for use in support of the affected program or 
     project, in accordance with regulations issued by the 
     Secretary. If the Secretary is the principal party initiating 
     or sustaining an action to recover amounts from families or 
     owners, the provisions of this section shall not apply.
       (c) Recovery.--Amounts may be recovered under this 
     section--
       (1) by an agency through a lawsuit (including settlement of 
     the lawsuit) brought by the agency or through court-ordered 
     restitution pursuant to a criminal proceeding resulting from 
     an agency's investigation where the agency seeks prosecution 
     of a family or where an agency seeks prosecution of an owner;
       (2) through administrative repayment agreements with a 
     family or owner entered into as a result of an administrative 
     grievance procedure conducted by an impartial decisionmaker 
     in accordance with section 110; or
       (3) through an agreement between the parties.

     SEC. 373. STUDY REGARDING GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATION OF 
                   ASSISTED FAMILIES.

       (a) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of the 
     geographic areas in the State of Illinois served by the 
     Housing Authority of Cook County and the Chicago Housing 
     Authority and submit to the Congress a report and a specific 
     proposal, which addresses and resolves the issues of--
       (1) the adverse impact on local communities due to 
     geographic concentration of assisted households under the 
     tenant-based housing programs under section 8 of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect upon the enactment 
     of this Act) and under this title; and
       (2) facilitating the deconcentration of such assisted 
     households by providing broader housing choices to such 
     households.
       The study shall be completed, and the report shall be 
     submitted, not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Concentration.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``concentration'' means, with respect to any area within a 
     census tract, that--
       (1) 15 percent or more of the households residing within 
     such area have incomes which do not exceed the poverty level; 
     or
       (2) 15 percent or more of the total affordable housing 
     stock located within such area is assisted housing.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 374, STUDY REGARDING RENTAL ASSISTANCE.

       The Secretary shall conduct a nationwide study of the 
     choice-based housing assistance program under this title and 
     the tenant-based rental assistance program under section 8 of 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect pursuant 
     to section 601(c) and 602(b)). The study shall, for various 
     localities--
       (1) determine who are the providers of the housing in which 
     families assisted under such programs reside;
       (2) describe and analyze the physical and demographic 
     characteristics of the housing in which such assistance is 
     used, including, for housing in which at least one such 
     assisted family resides, the total number of units in the 
     housing and the number of units in the housing for which such 
     assistance is provided;
       (3) determine the total number of units for which such 
     assistance is provided;
       (4) describe the durations that families remain on waiting 
     lists before being provided such housing assistance; and
       (5) assess the extent and quality of participation of 
     housing owners in such assistance programs in relation to the 
     local housing market, including comparing--
       (A) the quality of the housing assisted to the housing 
     generally available in the same market; and
       (B) the extent to which housing is available to be occupied 
     using such assistance to the extent to which housing is 
     generally available in the same market.
       The Secretary shall submit a report describing the results 
     of the study to the Congress not later than the expiration of 
     the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

  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. 
Rogers] 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 United

[[Page H2281]]

States Housing Act of 1937, deregulate the public housing program and 
the program for rental housing assistance for low-income families, and 
increase community control over such programs, and for other purposes, 
had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________