[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 59 (Thursday, May 8, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2399-H2426]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1615
           HOUSING OPPORTUNITY AND RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1997

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. LaHood). 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}  1615


                     In The Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2) to repeal the United States Housing Act of 1937, 
deregulate the public housing program and the program for rental 
housing assistance for low-income families, and increase community 
control over such programs, and for other purposes, with Mr. Goodlatte 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, May 
7, 1997, title III was open for amendment at any point.
  Are there any amendments to title III?


       Amendment No. 12 Offered By Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts.

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

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts:
       Page 174, line 20, insert ``VERY'' before ``LOW-INCOME''.
       Page 175, line 11, insert ``very'' before ``low-income.''
       Page 187, line 5, insert ``Very'' before ``Low-Income.''
       Page 187, line 10, insert ``very'' before ``low-income.''
       Page 187, strike lines 13 through 22 and insert the 
     following:
       (b) Income Targeting.--
       (1) PHA-wide requirement.--Of all the families who 
     initially receive housing assistance under this title from a 
     public housing agency in any fiscal year of the agency, not 
     less than 75 percent shall be families whose incomes do not 
     exceed 30 percent of the area median income.
       (2) Area median income.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term ``area median income'' means the median income of an 
     area, as determined by the Secretary with adjustments for 
     smaller and larger families, except that the Secretary may 
     establish income ceilings higher or lower than the 
     percentages specified in subsection (a) if the Secretary 
     finds determines that such variations are necessary because 
     of unusually high or low family incomes.
       Page 205, line 7, insert ``very'' before ``low-income''.
       Page 205, line 24, insert ``very'' before ``low-''.
       Page 211, line 6, insert ``very'' before ``low-income''.
       Page 214, line 1, insert ``very'' before ``low-income''.

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with 
the issue of the concentration of very poor people in the voucher 
program. The voucher program is an important aspect of our overall 
housing policy in this country where instead of having families that 
live in public housing units where they are concentrated in large 
numbers, in many cases in some of the kind of monstrosities that we 
have come to think of as public housing, but rather as a different type 
of program where any individual that is eligible for the program simply 
receives a voucher and can take that voucher really to any building in 
any given locality. It is a tremendously effective program; it is one 
that has broad bipartisan support. However, we have to, I believe, 
recognize that the major efforts that have been made by the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity has been to show 
his concern in H.R. 2 of the concentration of the number of very poor 
people that live in public housing.
  Now, as a result of pursuing that policy, we have tried to pass 
amendments that would have allowed the glidepath of the number of very 
low-income people that occupy public housing units to decrease to about 
50-50. In other words, 50 percent of the people in public housing units 
would have been people that were very low income and 50 percent of the 
people would be essentially working families.
  That amendment was defeated, and instead we go back to the underlying 
language in H.R. 2 which would mean that about 80 percent of the people 
in public housing would be people with incomes that would be around $30 
to $40,000 a year, or working families. While that is debated to be a 
positive aspect of the new H.R. 2's housing policy, it does beg the 
question as to what occurs with the 5.3 million families in this 
country who are very, very poor, the vast majority of whom are 
children.
  Now what occurs of course is that those families simply will be 
without any housing assistance whatsoever. As I have noted on previous 
occasions, we have already cut the number of the amount of funding for 
homeless programs by over 25 percent, we have cut the funding for 
housing programs by about 25 percent, and so therefore we end up in a 
situation by fixing public housing of simply throwing out millions of, 
or hundreds of thousands of families, and perhaps not throwing them out 
on the street, but nevertheless not providing them with any assistance.
  Now the basic rationale is that we need to have more working families 
in public housing. While that may be a desirable public policy, as we 
have already debated, it does not seem to me to hold up in any way, 
shape or form when it comes to the voucher program. There is no 
concentration of very poor people in any communities in this country 
using the voucher program. And yet the Republican plan calls for

[[Page H2400]]

under H.R. 2 a reduction in the number of very poor families that would 
receive funding under the voucher program, again decreasing 
dramatically from the 75 percent of the people that currently receive 
the vouchers at below 30 percent of median income to about 80 percent 
of the families over the period of the next few years going to incomes 
above 80 percent of median.
  And so what we have is a situation where working families will end up 
receiving the voucher program, and while people can argue that this is 
what they want in terms of public housing or the assisted housing 
policy, this is an issue where I think it is crystal clear that we do 
not have to throw out and turn our backs on the very, very poor in 
order to have the kind of income mix and the kind of neighborhood mix 
that I think is desirable in our country.
  It seems to me that even in the richest neighborhoods of America it 
would not be bad to necessarily have a few poor people living in 
apartments that are being rented in those areas, if in fact those 
apartments are available to the section 8 program. If we want to have 
mixed income communities, if that is the ultimate desire of good 
housing policy, then it seems to me that we ought to continue to keep 
the concentration levels up to 75 percent that we have seen in the past 
under the amendment that I am proposing.
  Now this amendment that we propose actually amends that program to 
allow for an even greater mix of working families to participate in the 
voucher program.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts was allowed to 
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to object, but at 
one time we discussed time limitation; I thought perhaps agreement as 
to that. If we can do that, that would be helpful.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would entertain 
imposing a time limitation if it appears at a certain point we would be 
going well beyond--I do not think we agreed to a time limitation on 
this amendment. If the gentleman would recognize it is only a few 
Members in the Chamber, we do not expect this debate is going to last 
very long, and I would appreciate the gentleman, maybe if we get beyond 
20 minutes on each side we could entertain a limitation.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I appreciate the gentleman allowing the 
use he requests.
  The point of this amendment is really very simple. It essentially, 
H.R. 2, reduces the percentage of section 8 certificates that must go 
to the very, very poor to only 40 percent from the current levels of 75 
percent. It also permits up to 60 percent of the new section 8 
assistance to go to those with incomes as high as 80 percent of median, 
as high as $41,600 in cities like Boston and New York. Over time, 
millions of very, very poor families could be denied assistance in 
addition to 13 million individuals and families with acute housing 
problems.
  Do not be fooled by arguments from the other side about the 
concentrations of the very poor in public housing. This amendment has 
nothing to do with public housing or warehousing individuals, since 
section 8 assistance is portable.
  The choice here is simple: Should we target scarce Federal resources 
to those in greatest need? I believe we ought to. This amendment makes 
sure that it will be done.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentleman by saying I think he 
makes a number of very good arguments and that this is a reasonably 
close call, but I would come down on the other side because in the 
final measure there are some ramifications that are imperfect, and let 
me just go over a couple.
  One is that all of a sudden we develop a system in which the 
incentives are not to work, and so this is a disincentive-to-work 
provision.
  Let me explain why it works out that way, why if we pass this 
amendment, we will in effect be locking out the working poor from these 
programs.
  For instance, in the State of Iowa, and we have developed charts on a 
number of States, 83 percent of the districts in which families of four 
with two parents working full-time at a minimum wage would be excluded 
from this program under the Kennedy approach.
  Let me finish and then I will be happy to yield.
  If we take the State of Massachusetts, 44 percent of the districts in 
which families of four with two parents working full-time at no more 
than 55 cents above the minimum wage would be excluded from this 
program. When we exclude the working poor from the program, what we 
do--even though the gentleman is partly right that with voucher program 
we do not segregate the poor quite as dramatically, or the poorest of 
the poor quite as dramatically as we do in the nonvoucher approach, 
although there are in practice sometimes a little bit of choice-based 
movement into concentrated areas that may occur--we give people an 
incentive to have a program benefit instead of work.
  Virtually all that we are trying to do in this bill is work in a 
direction that is a bit different than current policy, and I 
acknowledge that, and it has some disadvantages, and I would 
acknowledge that as well. But we are trying to move in the direction of 
having more mixed approaches involving the poorest of the poor and the 
working poor being equal beneficiaries of, or if not equal at least 
being accommodated under Federal programs, and then to say to those 
that are not working, that there are more incentives to work.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to 
point out to the gentleman I do not know where he got his statistics, 
but the basic statistic that I think everyone acknowledges, and 
certainly, because I know the gentleman from Iowa voted for the minimum 
wage bill, I believe he referenced that in the debate the other day. 
Does the gentleman understand if one works a 40-hour week at minimum 
wage in this country, their income is about $11,000 a year; that is 
below the 30 percent that I am referring to in our targeting numbers?
  So what I am trying to suggest here, I do not know where the 
gentleman gets the 55 cents and all the rest of that stuff and he gave 
a bunch of these statistics the other day. I am just pointing out to 
the gentleman that the families that we are talking about, 75 percent 
of which are below 30 percent, in most cases are working.
  So what we are saying is that even if one works full time at a 
minimum wage job, they are still below the 30 percent targeting cutoff 
that we are trying to acknowledge is an important cutoff for the 
purposes of making certain that we take care of the very poor.
  Mr. LEACH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the 
gentleman is saying, and there is an aspect about targeting the poorest 
of the poor that has great attractiveness. On the other hand, all I 
know is that we have asked our very professional staff to go through an 
assessment and do the statistical analysis, and I have a chart in front 
of me of, oh, 15 States that at a minimum have 67 percent and up to a 
maximum of 94 percent of districts in which families of four with two 
parents working full time at minimum wage will be excluded, and I 
stress this, excluded from choice-based assistance; yes, it is under 
the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Just if the gentleman will yield for 
clarification purposes, he is counting two incomes and I am counting 
one. I am saying $11,000 a year.
  Mr. LEACH. We are counting two incomes of minimum wage with a family 
of four.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. It is $25,000 a year, Mr. Chairman. I 
mean these are statistics that we went through at length under the 
minimum wage bill.
  Mr. LEACH. All I am saying is the gentleman has a philosophical point 
that is deeply worthy of respect, and

[[Page H2401]]

all I am trying to say is unfortunately when we work it through, there 
are counterproductive ramifications, and I tried to lay out precisely 
what they are.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, when we debated this question of restricting aid to the 
very poorest, and that is what we are talking about, the bill says we 
should do less than we have been doing for the very poorest people.

                              {time}  1630

  The argument in favor of cutting back on what we do for the poorest 
of the poor, and remember that among the poorest of the poor, and many 
of them are just children and we are talking about small children who 
made the mistake of being born to very poor parents. The argument was 
with regard to public housing; if we do not cut back on what we are 
doing for the poorest of the poor, we will hurt them.
  The gentleman from Louisiana said well, maybe we are going to be 
doing less for the poorest of the poor, but we will be improving the 
quality in the housing projects by reducing economic segregation. Well, 
this amendment is one to which that argument simply does not apply, 
despite the effort of the gentleman from Iowa to try and drag it in 
sideways.
  The fact is that in public housing we have concentration by 
definition of people who are in public housing. When we are talking 
about section 8, we are talking about, particularly now since we are 
not talking about project-based where we construct these buildings, we 
are talking about tenant-based vouchers in section 8's. They choose, 
they can be moved about, so the concentration argument simply has no 
relevance. We are now being told even without concentration, we simply 
should not help as many very poor people.
  Why? Well, one argument, the gentleman from Iowa says the amendment 
of my friend from Massachusetts, [Mr. Kennedy] has a lot of appeal, but 
he has to vote against it. I want to commend the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Leach] because, as we debate the housing bill time and again the 
gentleman gets up and acknowledges the appeal, acknowledges the cogency 
of it. He is a man of iron discipline. He can resist more things that 
appeal to him by anybody I have met. He will time and again tell us 
that that is a good point, and that reaches a strong emotion, but we 
must be tough.
  But on whom are we being tough, some 3-year-old with a poor mother? 
Why are we being tough on her? Because if we allow her housing, we will 
give her a disincentive to work. That was the argument. If we do not 
cut back on what we give to the poorest of the poor, it will be a 
disincentive to work.
  The gentleman is suffering from cultural lag, Mr. Chairman, which I 
believe is a parliamentarily approved condition, he forgets about the 
welfare bill.
  Does the gentleman not remember that the majority reformed welfare? 
They no longer have the option of refusing to work if they are eligible 
to work. As a matter of fact, they cannot even refuse to work under the 
law now, even if there is no job. Whether or not there is a job for 
them is irrelevant. They will be punished if they do not go to work.
  So this notion that we are giving people a disincentive forgets about 
the welfare bill. Welfare is time-limited. The argument that we are 
giving people a disincentive to work does not make any sense, because 
they will be cut off altogether. The question is simply whether they 
are working, and at minimum wage jobs, the number of two-parent 
families is probably not as great as some one-parent families.
  We have a one-parent family on minimum wage, they are fully eligible 
here. And the notion that we are giving people a disincentive, I mean, 
what the gentleman is saying is, if we tell the very poorest of the 
poor that they can get housing, they will say oh, wonderful. I get to 
live in section 8 housing; even though my welfare is going to expire in 
2 years, I no longer have to work.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think that is the way it will happen.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] who the Kennedy amendment would exclude, 
and this is staff analysis.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time briefly, 
and I will yield back, but I regret that the Rules of the House do not 
allow us to yield to staff, because we could probably, by cutting out 
the middleman, have a more cogent debate; but given that is the rule, I 
will yield again to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, in Brownsville, TX, a family making $15,750 
will be excluded from this program. However, the fair market rent there 
is about $510, which is 39 percent of income.
  After paying for the year's rent, that family will have only $9,631 
to pay all other expenses from food to clothing to medical expenses.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, 
how does this exclude them? I think the gentleman misstates when he 
says that they will be excluded. I think he is inaccurately suggesting 
that the amendment of my friend from Massachusetts will totally 
restrict them from the program and will exclude them. Will he explain 
to me how they will be excluded?
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
what the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts does and one of 
the reasons I think this is such a close call is suggest that only the 
poorest of the poor would be targeted.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me 
say this: Amendments do not suggest, amendments say, they are wording. 
And I think, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the chairman of the committee 
is being a little more ambiguous than the rules allow in this sense.
  I challenge the notion that this excludes people. It does not suggest 
that they are excluded, it is amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank] has expired.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask for 2 additional 
minutes.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reserving my right to object, I 
would just like to ask if the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] 
will yield to me.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Lazio].
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. FRANK was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the inaccurate statement 
has been made, in all good faith, that this excludes people, and I do 
not believe it excludes them. This is not, as I understand, I would 
just say in 10 more seconds I will yield, I have previously supported 
amendments to the Federal preference system because they had the effect 
of totally excluding people above poverty. This is not an effort 
totally to exclude them, nor do I believe the amendment does exclude 
them.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio].
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I would 
just say in the gentleman from Massachusetts' amendment, the 
eligibility for choice-based assistance is restricted to families with 
incomes of 50 percent or below of median income.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the 
gentleman, 50 percent, not 30 percent.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, to respond, no, but the language 
of the gentleman's amendment is that anybody above 50 percent is 
excluded, and that is what the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] is 
taking.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, I think there is a 
clear misunderstanding here. My impression was from the gentleman from 
Iowa, and maybe I misheard him, was talking about 30 percent. If we 
were talking about 50 percent, it would be different. I thought there 
was a suggestion that the amendment excluded people above 30 percent of 
median, not 50

[[Page H2402]]

percent. That is a very different set of categories. I thought we were 
talking about people at 30 percent. If we are talking about 50 percent, 
it is a different story, but I thought there were statistics being 
given of people at 30 percent.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to 
my good friend that even HUD's own document here says that the 
likelihood of households having severe housing problems declines 
sharply as incomes rise above 30 percent of median. Over 70 percent of 
unassisted renters with incomes below 30 percent of median have 
priority problems compared with only 23 percent of unassisted renters 
with incomes between 31 and 50 percent.
  What all that means is that the acute housing needs of people with 
incomes below $25,000 are where the housing demand is. If we have 
incomes above $25,000, people generally can afford housing.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, my 
clear understanding is the gentleman from Ohio was talking about 30 
percent below median, not 50 percent, and 50 percent is the accurate 
people, people not being excluded below 30 percent.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a very interesting debate trying to decide how 
many vouchers we should have and how we can fairly distribute these 
vouchers. I think it would be fair to say that it would be very 
difficult ever to come up with a completely fair answer for everybody. 
I do not think there is a right answer. I think the whole debate over 
public housing is an interesting debate and, for me, a very 
disappointing debate. I do not know what number day this is, but it 
must be the 4th or 5th day we have been into the debate over public 
housing, and the differences between the two major debates here seems 
to be so little, from my viewpoint.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are really dealing with, and I think everybody 
is concerned about it, and that is how do we provide the maximum number 
of houses for poor people. That is what we want to do. We have 
different versions of this effort, but the detail on how to do this, 
and this micromanagement, even like who gets vouchers and how to 
declare and what is happening, this is just a very, very strange debate 
for somebody like myself who comes from a free market constitutional 
position. But nevertheless, I hear this debate.
  I do know, though, that if we look in general terms throughout the 
world, the more socialized a country is, the more interventionist it 
is, the more the government is involved in housing, the less houses we 
have for poor people. The more freedom a country has, the more houses 
there are.
  We have only been in the business of really working to provide 
housing for our poor people in the last 30 years, and I do not think we 
have done that good a job. I think we have plenty of poor people. As a 
matter of fact, there are probably more homeless now than there were 
even 30 years ago. However, I think someday we might have to wake up 
and decide that public housing might not be the best way to achieve 
housing for poor people.
  The basic assumption here in public housing is that if somebody does 
not have a house and another person has two houses, if we take one 
house from him and give it to the other one, that this would be fair 
and equitable. For some reason, this is not very appealing to me and to 
many others. As a matter of fact, if there was some slight degree of 
success on this, it would create a very dull society; it would cause a 
very poor society as well. But the efforts by government to 
redistribute houses never works, and we have to finally, I think, admit 
to this.
  Mr. Chairman, the effort to pay for public housing is another 
problem. It is always assumed that there is going to be some wealthy 
individual that will pay for the house for the poor individual. But the 
assumption is always that the wealthy will pay for it, but 
unfortunately, due to our tax system and due to the inflationary system 
that we have, low, middle income and middle class individuals end up 
paying the bills.
  This whole process is a snowball effect. The more effort we put out, 
the more problems it leaves, the more deficits we have, the more 
inflation we have, the more people become unemployed, and the more poor 
people we have, and the more pressure there is to build houses. This is 
what is going on. That is why people decry the fact that there are more 
homeless than ever before. And I grant, I believe there probably is, 
but I also believe that we are on the wrong track. I do not see how 
public housing has been beneficial. I believe, quite frankly, that it 
has been very detrimental.
  The two approaches that I hear, one wants to raise the budget by $5 
billion on our side of the aisle, and the other side complains it is 
not enough. I mean, how much more money? Is money itself going to do 
it?
  The basic flaw in public housing is that both sides of this argument 
that I hear is based on a moral assumption that I find incorrect. It is 
based on the assumption that the government has the moral authority to 
use force to redistribute wealth, to take money from one group to give 
to another. In other words, it endorses the concept that one has a 
right to their neighbor's property.
  This, to me, is the basic flaw that we accept, we do not challenge. I 
challenge it because I believe a free society is a more compassionate 
society. A free society can produce more houses than any type of 
government intervention or any government socialization of a program.
  Compassion is a wonderful thing, but if it is misled by erroneous 
economic assumptions, it will do the opposite. The unintended 
consequences of government intervention, government spending, 
government inflation is a very serious problem, because it literally 
creates more of the problem that we are trying to solve.
  So I would suggest that we should think more favorably about freedom, 
the marketplace, and a sound currency.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] for yielding to me.
  I would just like to point out a number of income levels at the 50 
percent of median that the amendment calls for. In Los Angeles, one can 
make $25,650 a year, and this really goes to the chairman of the full 
committee's numbers that he was citing earlier.
  I just want to point out to the gentleman that that definitely covers 
two minimum wage income families, or wage earners. In New York it would 
$24,500. Washington, DC would be $34,150. Boston, MA, $28,250. In all 
of those circumstances, two minimum wage job earners in a single family 
would still qualify for this program.
  So what it really comes down to, and if the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Leach] would engage in just a brief colloquy, I would appreciate it, 
because what we are really talking about, the gentleman understands 
that this no longer is an amendment that applies to public housing, it 
simply applies to the voucher program.
  I think we have answered the issue as to whether or not this is 
somehow a disincentive to work. This indicates that two people working 
in the same family at minimum wage jobs would still be eligible for 
this program in almost every major city in America. And so what we are 
trying to suggest is that we have a real problem here where it is in 
fact the largest single growing area of our population, the very, very 
poor.
  So the question before us is whether or not we are going to provide 
the housing to those very, very poor people under the voucher program.
  Now, there are other programs that exist in the Federal Government 
such as housing finance agencies, all sorts of subsidy programs for 
homeownership, that incomes of $25,000, $30,000, $35,000 a year are all 
eligible. The low income housing tax credit, there are a whole range of 
additional programs that meet those individuals' needs.

                              {time}  1645

  We ought to be encouraging home ownership among those folks. This is 
a

[[Page H2403]]

program that has no concentration problems, has no problems with regard 
to creating these monstrosities of old public housing units, but what 
it does do is say that, please, let us try and provide this resource to 
the families that have the greatest need.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reemphasize 
the point my friend just made, this is the only program which you can 
get into, basically, if you are 50 percent and below. There are other 
programs, not as much. There is the low-income housing tax credit which 
helps people at 70 and 80 and 90 percent and 60 percent. There is the 
home program.
  We have traditionally had in housing programs what we call deep 
subsidy programs and shallower subsidy programs. The problem we have is 
this: There is no way people at 30 and 40 percent can work their way 
into the lower subsidy programs. They cannot work up to that. They will 
never have enough money. So what you are doing is excluding to a great 
extent many of the poorest people from the only program they can 
afford. We have a range of programs, and you are skewing what has been 
a more balanced mix.
  I never wanted this to be only for the very poor, and I fought some 
of the Federal preferentials that made it only for the very poor, but 
the point is when you talk about the exclusion of working people you 
are forgetting the low-income housing tax credit, you are forgetting 
tax-exempt bonds for State housing finance agencies, you are forgetting 
the home program, elderly housing programs, you are forgetting a whole 
range of other things which provide only for people at the upper end of 
eligibility, and you are denying it to people for whom it is the only 
resource.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
would just stress that this program as currently drafted in the statute 
applies to the poorest of the poor, and it also applies to the working 
poor. The amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts will exclude in 
many instances the working poor.
  The second gentleman from Massachusetts notes, quite properly, that 
there are other programs that also deal with the working poor. But just 
so that there is no misunderstanding, because the gentleman cited some 
inner city circumstances that this amendment would not be exclusive of, 
in 16 States, 67 percent or more of HUD districts, families of four 
with two parents working full time at the minimum wage, would be 
excluded from this program.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Kennedy of Masssachusetts and by unanimous 
consent, Mr. Gonzalez was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I would also say that in addition to the 16 
States, where two-thirds of the districts would be excluded, even in 
Massachusetts, which is not as affected as some other States, 44 
percent of HUD districts would be excluded, of families of four with 
two parents working full time at no more than 55 cents above the 
minimum wage.
  So what this amendment does that is good is it targets the poorest of 
the poor. What it does that is imperfect is that it gives disincentives 
to work and it excludes many members of the relatively working poor.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I would just like to respond, Mr. 
Chairman, that the gentleman from Iowa has generally been a fair-minded 
chairman, and I think that he would perhaps admit that before this bill 
becomes law, some of these targeting amendments will change. So I find 
it surprising that he is going to argue this on merits.
  Those families that the gentleman just cited I believe would all be 
eligible for home ownership programs throughout the State of 
Massachusetts and all the other 17 States the gentleman just 
identified.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this notion of a work 
disincentive, given the existence of the welfare bill, would cut you 
off just comes out of thin air. The notion that people quit jobs or 
refuse to get jobs because they might get a section 8 when they would 
have no other means of support simply does not make any sense at all.
  Do the Members on the other side not remember what they did in the 
welfare bill? I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to try and put this whole debate into 
perspective. Under H.R. 2, the bill that we have been discussing for 
the last 4 or 5 days, under the choice-based program, which is commonly 
known as the voucher program, if a local community chooses they may 
target every single one of the vouchers to people below 30 percent of 
area median income, the poorest of the poor. If they choose, they can 
target them all to 20 percent, or 15 percent, or 10 percent. The idea 
is that the local community can choose.
  To the extent that the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Kennedy] handcuffs the hands of local authorities and says that 
they must set aside x amount of units to people below 30 percent of 
area median income, and no vouchers to those families making over 50 
percent of area median income, what it says is that the local 
communities, the housing authority cannot make a rational distinction 
for families that may be at 51 percent of area median income but have 
special needs. They are shut out.
  Make no mistake about it, this is about local control, this is about 
flexibility, this is about local communities being able to set their 
own goals with the understanding that at a minimum under this bill, at 
a minimum, that they must devote 40 percent of the units to people 
making under 30 percent of area median income, the poorest of the poor, 
at a minimum 40 percent of the units. But they can do 50 or 60 or 70 or 
80, depending on the local characteristics, and depending on the need 
of the people who are asking to be served, because some people will 
fall 1 or 2 or 5 or 8 percentage points higher, and they will have 
special needs that make them deserving of getting that voucher.
  Now, it is entirely correct, entirely correct, because when we are 
using HUD statistics, that if the amendment of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is adopted, families with two incomes, a 
husband and a wife at minimum wage or a few pennies above minimum wage, 
like 50 cents over minimum wage, will be completely shut out from 
vouchers, a family of four.
  For example, in Pennsylvania, a family of four with two wage earners, 
a mom and dad at minimum wage, living in 61 percent of HUD's fair 
market rent areas will not be eligible to receive the voucher benefit; 
none, no families. In Illinois, 70 percent of the fair market rent 
areas would have families of four that would be wholly ineligible under 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] 
to receive a voucher; in Arkansas, 93 percent; in Louisiana, 94 
percent; 94 percent. Do Members want to know who is excluded? The 
families with two parents working at minimum wage, that is who would be 
excluded under the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  So if we took it to its logical extension, if people responded to the 
incentives that would be created by the gentleman's amendment, they 
would choose not to marry or they certainly would choose, they would 
certainly choose not to work, and so they would make no income. 
Therefore they would respond to the incentives under the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts to receive the benefit. But 
if they are workers at minimum wage and trying to make it, trying to 
live by the rules, they are shut out.
  We are not saying under H.R. 2 that poor people should not get help, 
because under H.R. 2 we are saying at a

[[Page H2404]]

minimum, at a minimum, 40 percent of those vouchers ought to go to 
people of very low income. There is no maximum of vouchers to the very 
poor, but it is up to the local community to decide. We are not 
prescribing from Washington. We are not saying, again, Big Brother will 
tell you exactly what to do and what percentages you are going to set, 
because in the real world, in the real world, percentages do not 
accurately reflect the needs of families and individuals.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman 
seriously trying to stand up before us and tell us that if we target 
housing to very poor families, that that is a disincentive to get 
married?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what I am 
suggesting is that the gentleman's amendment, if adopted, would do 
precisely that. It would create that level of incentive, because I 
would say to the gentleman, again, if you have a family of two making 
minimum wage, you would not be eligible under the gentleman's amendment 
to receive vouchers in a vast amount of areas throughout the country. 
But if you chose not to get married or if you chose not to work, then 
you would be eligible. That is the incentive that the gentleman's 
amendment would create. That is why I am opposed to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been fascinated by this debate, and a little 
perplexed. I kind of came in when the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul] 
was making his comments, and noted that there were some striking 
similarities between what we were debating today and what we debated 
last week.
  Last week we were trying to tell our colleagues on the other side, 
including the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul], that if you take a house 
away from one person and give it to another, you are creating a problem 
for the one from whom you took it. That is why we said, hey, unless you 
are creating more housing, every time you take a public housing unit 
away from the very poor and give it to the working poor you are 
disadvantaging the very poor and putting them on the street.
  The gentleman from Texas is not here, but I wanted to tell him that I 
certainly agree with his notion that if you take a house away from 
somebody and give it to somebody else, the person you took it from has 
been disadvantaged, but that was true last week as well as it is this 
week. It did not change from last week to this week. The same theory 
applies. It was true then, it is true now.
  I wanted to tell him that while he may be right that public housing 
is a problem, we are not talking about public housing now. This is 
about vouchers, and so we are not talking about public housing projects 
or public housing communities this week. We had that discussion last 
week.
  I certainly want to tell the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], the 
chairman of the subcommittee, that it is fine for him to talk about 
local flexibility today, but where was all the local flexibility last 
week when we were debating this issue, or earlier this week, when we 
were debating this issue? He values local flexibility now, it seems to 
me he would have valued it then.
  But first and foremost, I cannot understand why last week and earlier 
this week the objective was to come up with a mix, and all of a sudden 
now we are on the other side of that issue. It is okay to mix in public 
housing working poor, even if it is at the expense of the very poor, 
but it is not okay to mix into the voucher program more poor people 
because that vouchered housing is out in some other parts of the 
community. If it is a good policy to support mixing income levels, 
then, my goodness, is it not a good policy running in both directions? 
It cannot be only a one-way street.
  I do not understand, Mr. Chairman, why we have gotten ourselves into 
this, except that again the committee chairman and the subcommittee 
chairman are defending this bill at all costs, as if it was some 
perfect vehicle. This bill is not perfect. The problem is we have got a 
limited number of units and they have to go to somebody. We have a 
limited number of vouchers and they have to go to somebody.
  We are trying to figure out some way to get not only poor people, the 
working poor taken care of, but we are trying to figure out a way to 
get the very poor taken care of, because if we do not do that, those 
people are going to end up on the street.

                              {time}  1700

  They do not have any options. And so while the Kennedy solution is 
not a perfect solution, the only perfect solution is to come up with 
more housing units for public housing and more vouchers for nonpublic 
housing to accommodate all of the people who do not have enough 
housing. That is the only perfect solution. I would submit to my 
colleagues that the solution of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] is a lot better than the solution that is provided for in the 
base bill.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
from New York for yielding to me.
  I want to respond just briefly to a number of these issues. We hear 
an awful lot of heated rhetoric here. I think when we get to a point 
where we are suggesting that by looking out for very poor people that 
we are somehow dealing with a disincentive to get married, we have 
reached a new low in terms of how we characterize this debate. This is 
very simply an issue of the fact that there are not enough resources to 
take care of the housing needs of very poor people.
  The chairman of the committee understands very clearly that we did 
cut 25 percent of the Nation's homeless budget in these last 2 years. 
We have also dramatically cut back on housing funding by another 25 
percent. The number of poor people that we are going to be able to 
affect in terms of housing policy has shrunk, not grown. The number of 
poor people that are eligible for this housing has grown substantially, 
not shrunk. So we have a bigger problem with shorter resources.
  The question is whether or not in terms of these public housing 
projects, whether or not we should have a better mix of working 
families in those projects. I believe we should. I think that the 
Republican solution went too far in terms of public housing itself. 
However, we lost that debate. I accept that loss.
  This is a different debate. This deals with the voucher program where 
the Government gives them a voucher. They can take it to any 
neighborhood. Where a landlord will accept payment in that 
neighborhood, they can get the unit. It has nothing to do with 
concentrations.
  We have other housing programs with people, and I am sure in the 
State of Iowa, the State of Massachusetts, two very different States, I 
have spent time in both, when there are States as varying as those two, 
they are able to, with incomes of $25,000, $28,000, $30,000 a year, 
incomes with two parents working, they are eligible for a broad array 
of homeownership programs, including many programs that are offered by 
private sector banks, many of whom are incentivized through the 
Community Reinvestment Act.
  There are banks that would line up to get families that have that 
kind of income to make loans to them, to buy condominiums that might be 
worth, $60,000, $70,000, $80,000 to $100,000 in all, a broad array of 
these markets. They are not the individuals that badly need the voucher 
program.
  The families that need the voucher program are the very poor. It is 
the single largest growing portion of the American population. For us 
to say, using just the rhetoric of public housing projects, to denounce 
and to suggest that somehow by looking out for very poor people, this 
bill has fungibility built in, a new policy that I strongly object to, 
because what it enables us to do is to take and strip people out of 
various projects and take

[[Page H2405]]

them out of the public housing program and put them into the voucher 
program or vice versa.
  The chairman would understand that there is an incentive brought by 
the local public housing authority to take in more upper-income people. 
It means that there are going to be very many more, very low income 
people that are not going to have any government assistance, nobody is 
going to take care of them. They are going to be out on the street. 
That is ultimately the policy that we are endorsing here. It is not 
antimarriage. It is not antilove. It is not antianything. It is just 
saying, can we find it in our souls to just be a little compassionate?
  We have told the poor people they have to go to work. We have told 
the poor people that they cannot have dogs and cats. Well, OK, if we 
want to say that. We have told them all sorts of things in this bill. 
They have got to file personal improvement programs. They have to go to 
work. They have got all sorts of different requirements placed on them. 
What we are just trying to suggest is put whatever requirements we have 
to, but please give this housing to those families that have the 
greatest need.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, there are two statistics that I think one 
has to be very careful of. The gentleman has used 25 percent and with 
the time frame, but it must be placed in the Record that this bill that 
we have before us is 100 percent of the administration's request this 
year.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Iowa 
knows that the funding levels that we have already suggested, that the 
President was wrong at the funding levels. I know my colleague makes 
the case that that means that we are out of touch.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Nadler was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield, what I am pointing out to the gentleman is that it 
was the Republican Congress, it was under his leadership that this 
committee cut the homeless budget by 25 percent and cut the housing 
budget by 25 percent as well. It was those actions that ended up with 
the lower funding levels at $20 billion a year and less than a billion 
dollars a year in homeless funding. That is what happened. It was under 
the Republican leadership, under the Contract With America, under the 
rescission bill that that took place. And that is why we are at the 
level of funding we are today. It is unconscionable that President 
Clinton accepted those funding levels. And if he were here on this 
floor today, I would tell him to his face.
  This is a terrible level of housing assistance but it does not 
provide an excuse for us going along with it.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, first I want to be very precise on several 
points. The gentleman has referred to a reduction in spending for 
several programs as part of a 95 supplemental which was not passed out 
of our committee. This was not a committee that passed that out. So the 
gentleman is making a point in attempting to assert a degree of 
personal responsibility for which I think he should be very cautious.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield, did the gentleman from Iowa vote for that budget?
  Mr. LEACH. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and the President of the United States 
signed it.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have said that I do not 
go along with the President of the United States on this. I certainly 
did not vote for it. The gentleman's side initiated it and his side 
voted for it.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
would also stress again, what this bill does, as it is currently 
constituted, is target to the poorest of the poor, but then it does not 
say that the near-poor are excluded. What the Kennedy amendment does is 
exclude the near-poor. In this regard, we are also saying that it is 
local discretion. There is no binding exclusion which the Kennedy 
amendment implies. But under the committee approach, 100 percent would 
go to the poorest of the poor.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] 
has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Nadler was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if perhaps 
the solution to this issue would be to go back to what is current 
policy. Would the gentleman from Iowa object to a provision that would 
suggest that we keep 75 percent of the units at below 30 percent and 
allow the other 25 percent to go to whatever income levels that the 
gentleman chooses?
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
would be happy to look carefully at language that comes before the 
committee. We will seriously review it. That will become a 
conferenceable issue. This chairman of this committee would have an 
open mind.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the 
gentleman that we are in the midst of a markup. We are at a situation 
right now, Mr. Chairman, where we have the possibility. I have the 
authority to accept that provision. It goes back to existing law. We do 
not need a lot of studies. We have a lot of years of experience. I 
wonder whether or not the chairman would convince the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Housing to accept that right now.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Lazio of New York, and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Nadler was allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would say that the very 
essence of H.R. 2 is local flexibility. That is not in current law. 
Current law suggests, again, go back to the same old Washington 
prescription. This is why we want to have this kind of flexibility so 
that working people, families making, a family of four with two wage 
earners at minimum wage would not be shut out as they are, both under 
the Kennedy amendment and under current law.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I cannot sit here and 
listen to the chairman of our subcommittee say that with a straight 
face after the debate we had last week. The essence of this bill is 
certainly not local flexibility, far from it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 133, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] 
will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments to title III?


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler:
       Page 184, strike lines 5 through 8 and insert the 
     following:
       (a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated for 
     providing public housing agencies with housing assistance 
     under this title for each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 
     2001, and 2002--

[[Page H2406]]

       (1) such sums as may be necessary to renew any contracts 
     for choice-based assistance under this title or tenant-based 
     assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 (as in effect before the repeal under section 601(b) 
     of this Act) that expire during such fiscal year, only for 
     use for such purpose; and
       (2) $305,000,000, only for use for incremental assistance 
     under this title.

  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, we have negotiated a time 
limitation on this amendment of 26 minutes, evenly divided, the 
gentleman from New York controlling half the time and myself 
controlling half the time.
  I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and all 
amendments thereto be limited to 26 minutes, evenly divided between the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] and myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] and the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler], each will control 13 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to this bill that 
would, I would like to commend the gentleman from New York on the other 
side and the gentleman from Massachusetts for their hard work on this 
bill. This bill is seriously deficient because it reneges on our 
national commitment to create decent affordable housing. This bill 
provides absolutely no specific funding to make any new housing 
available to low income or moderate income families.
  My amendment, which the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] joins 
me in offering, would authorize 50,000 new section 8 vouchers to help 
low income families afford safe decent housing. We must send the 
appropriators a message that we believe the creation of new section 8 
vouchers is a priority.
  I would like to thank the chairman of the subcommittee and gentleman 
from Massachusetts for including language in the bill so that funding 
will be available to renew all existing section 8 vouchers. It is 
vitally important that those families currently benefiting from this 
program not be suddenly thrown out on the street. But it is not enough. 
The need for housing assistance remains staggering. Today 5.3 million 
poor families either pay more than 50 percent of their income for rent 
or live in severely substandard housing.
  President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, founder of the public housing 
system in our Nation, spoke eloquently in 1944 of the fact that, and I 
quote, ``True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security 
and independence. Necessitous men are not free men.''
  FDR was right. Every family has the right to a decent home, or do we 
no longer believe this to be so?
  President Roosevelt's commitment to provide decent, safe, affordable 
housing to those that cannot afford the rent in the private market 
continued through administrations both Republican and Democratic. 
Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George Bush all to some degree 
continued that commitment. But 2 years ago, the majority in Congress 
decided that commitment was no longer worth keeping. For the first time 
since the program began, no money was provided in that budget for new 
section 8 vouchers.
  Our amendment will return to the legacy of the past half century. It 
will authorize funding to provide for an additional 50,000 
certificates, equal to the President's request. I challenge anyone to 
argue that tenant-based section 8 vouchers do not achieve their goals. 
The tenant-based section 8 program is one of the most successful 
housing programs in existence. Section 8 pays a portion of a qualified 
family's rent. Each family commits 30 percent of their income to rent. 
The rest is paid by the section 8 voucher.
  Overall rents are capped at fair market value. Thanks to section 8, 
families are able to afford decent safe housing; nothing extravagant 
and frankly sometimes not very nice at all, but much better than the 
alternative. For these families section 8 is more than a contract or a 
subsidy. It is often the foundation upon which they can build lifelong 
economic self-sufficiency. Section 8 allows families to enter the 
private housing market and choose where they live, creating better 
income mixes throughout our communities.

                              {time}  1715

  Today over a million families receive section 8 vouchers, which give 
them the mobility to choose their own decent housing. Yet over 5 
million households are defined by HUD as having worst case housing 
needs; that is, paying over 50 percent of their income in rent or 
living in severely substandard housing. Not one of these 5 million 
families receives any Federal housing assistance. Their need is 
desperate. We must not turn our backs on the realities of the housing 
market and our people's desperate needs.
  Our amendment will allow 50,000 more families to live in safe, 
affordable, decent housing. It is not asking for much. We only ask that 
today we commit to meet 1 percent of the need for affordable housing in 
our Nation. We can and should do more, but today, I will ask only for a 
very modest downpayment.
  Some will say even helping 1 percent will cost too much. Some will 
say we cannot afford to pay the $6,000 per family it would cost to 
provide decent housing for these families. The reality is we cannot 
afford to shirk this responsibility.
  The money is there. The chairman of the Committee on the Budget has 
taken the lead in pointing out the billions of dollars we spend each 
year on corporate welfare. The GAO recently reported that the 
Department of Defense has $2.7 billion in inventory items which are not 
needed to meet the services' operating and reserve requirements. Simply 
eliminating from the defense budget just the storage cost of these 
unnecessary inventory items would save $382 million annually, 
substantially more than the cost of this amendment.
  That is the choice before us today: Pay for outdated, archaic, 
inflated needs, and we can find them throughout the budget, or focus 
our scarce resources on programs that, without question, do much good. 
Which is more important, unnecessary rivets collecting dust in a 
warehouse somewhere or a roof over a family's head?
  Mr. Chairman, I ask support for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Lazio] for allowing me to proceed, and I thank the other gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Nadler] for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, next week the House will consider a supplemental 
appropriations bill to help the victims of the Red River flood. I will 
join most Members in supporting this legislation because the families 
of Grand Forks need and deserve our help. But the offset for this 
emergency assistance is, once again, housing.
  It seems that every time we cut the budget or provide relief to 
victims of natural disasters, the first account we look to is the 
housing account. In this latest supplemental we are cutting housing 
programs by $3.5 billion. These funds were put aside by housing 
authorities at our discretion to begin to cover the massive payment we 
all know is coming due for expiring project-based assistance.
  These are not just my views. This week the chairman of the Senate 
Committee on the Budget, Pete Domenici, said expiring section 8 
contracts will gobble up discretionary spending. So, with no thought to 
the consequences, we will soon vote to eliminate funding for 500,000 
federally assisted housing units.
  The amendment I offer, with my good friend from New York, Mr. Nadler, 
says we must stop using HUD for spare parts. Under Presidents Richard 
Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush, Congress and the 
President managed to find at least some new money for housing. But last 
year, for the first time in 50 years, we provided nothing, no new money 
for housing construction and no new money for section 8.
  It is not because we solved the housing crisis. As we all know too 
well, 5.3 million families still pay over half their income in rent and 
live in substandard units, the likes of which my colleagues and I would 
be repulsed by.

[[Page H2407]]

  Our amendment provides a modest increase of $300 million for section 
8 housing each year over the next 5 years. Our amendment lets 50,000 
new families each year receive desperately needed housing assistance. 
It is identical to the President's request, which means that in the 
context of balancing the budget, we can afford it.
  I commend the gentleman from New York, Chairman Lazio, for many of 
the reforms in this bill, particularly in the area of public housing. I 
understand he is under a great deal of pressure to cut spending, and he 
has received no support from those on his side of the aisle to fight 
for funding.
  This is, indeed, a well-intentioned bill, but it is not enough. We 
have a 50-year streak of helping those with housing needs. Let us not 
jeopardize it. Support the Nadler-Schumer amendment.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say, first of all, that under the terms of 
H.R. 2, the bill we are debating today, we do authorize incremental or 
new vouchers. In the language of the bill we simply authorize that such 
sums as may be necessary are authorized. The reason for that is because 
we do not have any basis for fixing a sum.
  For example, certain buildings in public housing will be demolished, 
in which case some of those residents may receive vouchers. In some 
cases the cost of remodeling will be so great that it will be more cost 
effective and the choice will be better for the tenant to receive a 
voucher, and they will receive that voucher. In other situations, 
people that may be displaced are seniors or disabled and will be 
receiving vouchers but, again, we are not sure exactly how many there 
are.
  So we have tried to make it clear from an authorizing standpoint that 
we are for additional new vouchers, but we cannot exactly say for sure 
because there is no basis to say for sure how many new vouchers we are 
authorizing.
  Now, under the amendment offered by the gentlemen from New York, they 
are requesting a sum certain, $350 million in budget authority for new 
section 8 certificates and vouchers of the choice-based program under 
the terms of the bill. According to the General Accounting Office, 
there is no basis in fact in which to determine, other than this 
objective, that 50,000 vouchers is the appropriate amount of vouchers. 
It may be too little or it may be too much, but there is no certainty.
  That is why we have allowed maximum flexibility in the bill but, at 
the same time, a statement that we believe that additional vouchers 
should be authorized, they are authorized and should be appropriated 
for.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding to me.
  Let me just say first that the reason we put a specific amount in 
here, and the specific amount is the amount suggested in the 
President's budget, is that we believe that given the fact that in this 
year's budget, the budget we are living under now, there is zero 
appropriation for new section 8 housing, and an open-ended 
authorization of whatever may be necessary will not get anything from 
the appropriators. So we think that we should have a sum certain.
  I would ask the gentleman if he would, whether this amendment passes 
or fails, if he would join us in asking the Committee on Appropriations 
for a sum certain. I would ask for this amount, the gentleman may pick 
some other number, but a sum certain so that we know that in this 
budget we will at least continue our commitment to new section 18?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say 
to the gentleman that I would be happy to advocate to the Committee on 
Appropriations for additional vouchers, choice-based vouchers.
  If we could find an appropriate basis to fix an authorization number, 
I would even be willing, in the event this amendment fails, to include 
that, if we could, at conference level.
  My position is that I do not have any basis right now in order to fix 
a number. I would also add that the appropriators, of course, even with 
an authorization, chose not to appropriate money. So there is really no 
reason, simply because we have a fixed number of $350 million, to 
presume that alone would lead the appropriators to appropriate money 
for that account. Because there is, of course the gentleman knows, a 
crisis in the project-based section 8 which needs to be resolved, and I 
understand that and I sympathize with the appropriators, but I am happy 
and pleased to advocate for additional vouchers because the need is 
clearly there.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Nadler] for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment, and I do so because 
it attempts to recognize one of the great needs in our society. Almost 
any evening across urban America, you can walk down the streets and see 
hundreds of men and women lined up trying to get in shelters because 
they have no place to go.
  This amendment would, at least, give 50,000 additional homeless 
families in America a place to live. I strongly support it. I commend 
the gentleman for introducing it and hope that it will pass.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Lazio], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community 
Opportunity, for agreeing with the need for additional vouchers and for 
his agreeing to go to the Committee on Appropriations and urge 
additional vouchers.
  I would suggest, however, that we all know, that the gentleman from 
New York knows and I know and everyone knows, that given the fiscal 
stringencies in the balanced budget agreement, whatever happens to the 
politics of that over the next few weeks and months, that the odds of 
getting a real appropriation, a sizable appropriation, are very small. 
The odds of getting an appropriation that exceeds the amount suggested 
in this authorization in this amendment is, I would suggest, nil.
  So I would urge the gentleman to accept this amendment as a ceiling 
on what we can realistically expect and as an expression by the House 
to the appropriators that may strengthen our hand in getting some 
reasonable fraction of this as an appropriation. I hope the gentleman 
will see the reasoning of that.
  But, in any event, I would urge the passage of this amendment, if 
only to say morally that this House demands, that the House wants and 
knows that we need additional section 8 vouchers. I suspect that by 
putting a specific number in it, it really does strengthen our hand 
with the appropriators, although it obviously does not guarantee it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers on this 
amendment. If I may inquire of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] 
if he has additional speakers.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we have no other speakers. I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in summary, we need more section 8 vouchers. It is the 
only program we have going for additional low-income and moderate-
income housing units. We have 5.3 million households. That is probably 
15 or 16 million people in desperate need of new housing.
  Last year was the first year since 1937, with the possible exception 
of a couple years in World War II, in which we had a zero budget for 
new low- and moderate-income housing. I think it imperative that we 
speak out by adoption of this amendment that we do not mean to make 
permanent this turning away from our 60 years' commitment to house our 
people decently. So I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  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.
  Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could enter into a colloquy with the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler]. First of all, let me compliment 
the gentleman for his interest in housing

[[Page H2408]]

and community development. I am well aware of it in the New York 
metropolitan area.
  Second of all, let me inquire of the gentleman if it would be 
acceptable to the gentleman if he received a commitment from this 
Member to work with him to establish a fixed amount in terms of 
authorization or, in the alternative, to go to the Committee on 
Appropriations to argue with the gentleman for an appropriate amount 
for which we could establish some logical basis, if the gentleman would 
consider withdrawing the amendment for now and working with this 
Member?
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am not clear on what the gentleman is 
suggesting. Is the gentleman suggesting that we would simply go to the 
Committee on Appropriations and that we would seek a different amount 
to put in as an amendment to this bill?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would 
suggest that we could pursue either or both strategies as long as we 
get a reasonable basis in order to fix an amount.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
appreciate the commitment of the gentleman and willingness or eagerness 
to join in going to the Committee on Appropriations to urge a specific 
amount. I do think this bill should contain a specific amount.
  I would be willing to withdraw this amendment if we have the 
agreement that we will try to work out by Tuesday a specific amount 
which we would then put into the bill and, if we do not reach that, we 
can have at least a voice vote on this amendment.

                              {time}  1730

  But I do think we should have a specific amount, not simply in mind 
with which to go to the Committee on Appropriations but in the bill.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. If I could reclaim my time, the best case 
scenario from this Member's perspective would be if the gentleman would 
withdraw the amendment and we would work to see if we could establish 
some good basis in order to make a judgment. But if that were not the 
case that we could do that by Tuesday, it might take longer. But I am 
committing to the gentleman that I would work with the gentleman to 
advocate for additional vouchers as long as we have a reasonable 
amount. Otherwise, I am afraid that we would be asking for an amount 
that has no clear basis. It has merit but not a factual basis.
  Mr. NADLER. If the gentleman will yield further, I understand what 
the gentleman means. I would be willing on that basis to withdraw the 
amendment until Tuesday so we could if we reach an agreement, an agreed 
amount, put it in and do that then. I do not think I could withdraw the 
amendment without that.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I thank the gentleman. We will have to take 
the vote on this. I thank the gentleman and look forward to working 
with him either way.
  Mr. NADLER. If the gentleman will yield further, I appreciate the 
gentleman's comments. I look forward to working with him whatever 
happens to this amendment at this point.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 133, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] 
will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments to title III?
  The Clerk will designate title IV.
  The text of title IV is as follows:
               TITLE IV--HOME RULE FLEXIBLE GRANT OPTION

     SEC. 401. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this title is to give local governments and 
     municipalities the flexibility to design creative approaches 
     for providing and administering Federal housing assistance 
     based on the particular needs of the communities that--
       (1) give incentives to low-income families with children 
     where the head of household is working, seeking work, or 
     preparing for work by participating in job training, 
     educational programs, or programs that assist people to 
     obtain employment and become economically self-sufficient;
       (2) reduce cost and achieve greater cost-effectiveness in 
     Federal housing assistance expenditures;
       (3) increase housing choices for low-income families; and
       (4) reduce excessive geographic concentration of assisted 
     families.

     SEC. 402. FLEXIBLE GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) Authority and Use.--The Secretary shall carry out a 
     program under which a jurisdiction may, upon the application 
     of the jurisdiction and the review and approval of the 
     Secretary, receive, combine, and enter into performance-based 
     contracts for the use of amounts of covered housing 
     assistance in a period consisting of not less than 1 nor more 
     than 5 fiscal years in the manner determined appropriate by 
     the participating jurisdiction--
       (1) to provide housing assistance and services for low-
     income families in a manner that facilitates the transition 
     of such families work;
       (2) to reduce homelessness;
       (3) to increase homeownership among low-income families; 
     and
       (4) for other housing purposes for low-income families 
     determined by the participating jurisdiction.
       (b) Inapplicability of Categorical Program Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2) and 
     section 405, the provisions of this Act regarding use of 
     amounts made available under each of the programs included as 
     covered housing assistance and the program requirements 
     applicable to each such program shall not apply to amounts 
     received by a jurisdiction pursuant to this title.
       (2) Applicability of certain laws.--This title may not be 
     construed to exempt assistance under this Act from, or make 
     inapplicable any provision of this Act or of any other law 
     that requires that assistance under this Act be provided in 
     compliance with--
       (A) title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000d et seq.);
       (B) the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.);
       (C) section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 
     U.S.C. 701 et seq.);
       (D) title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (86 Stat. 
     373 et seq.);
       (E) the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101 et 
     seq.);
       (F) the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; or
       (G) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and other 
     provisions of law that further protection of the environment 
     (as specified in regulations that shall be issued by the 
     Secretary).
       (c) Effect on Program Allocations for Covered Housing 
     Assistance.--The amount of assistance received pursuant to 
     this title by a participating jurisdiction shall not be 
     decreased, because of participation in the program under this 
     title, from the sum of the amounts that otherwise would be 
     made available for or within the participating jurisdiction 
     under the programs included as covered housing assistance.

     SEC. 403. COVERED HOUSING ASSISTANCE.

       For purposes of this title, the term ``covered housing 
     assistance'' means--
       (1) operating assistance provided under section 9 of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before the 
     effective date of this Act);
       (2) modernization assistance provided under section 14 of 
     such Act;
       (3) assistance provided under section 8 of such Act for the 
     certificate and voucher programs;
       (4) assistance for public housing provided under title II 
     of this Act; and
       (5) choice-based rental assistance provided under title III 
     of this Act.
     Such term does not include any amounts obligated for 
     assistance under existing contracts for project-based 
     assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 or section 601(f) of this Act.

     SEC. 404. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Eligible Families.--Each family on behalf of whom 
     assistance is provided for rental or homeownership of a 
     dwelling unit using amounts made available pursuant to this 
     title shall be a low-income family. Each dwelling unit 
     assisted using amounts made available pursuant to this title 
     shall be available for occupancy only by families that are 
     low-income families at the time of their initial occupancy of 
     the unit.
       (b) Compliance With Assistance Plan.--A participating 
     jurisdiction shall provide assistance using amounts received 
     pursuant to this title in the manner set forth in the plan of 
     the jurisdiction approved by the Secretary under section 
     406(a)(2).
       (c) Rent Policy.--A participating jurisdiction shall ensure 
     that the rental contributions charged to families assisted 
     with amounts received pursuant to this title--
       (1) do not exceed the amount that would be chargeable under 
     title II to such families were such families residing in 
     public housing assisted under such title: or
       (2) are established, pursuant to approval by the Secretary 
     of a proposed rent structure included in the application 
     under section 406, at levels that are reasonable and designed 
     to eliminate any disincentives for members of

[[Page H2409]]

     the family to obtain employment and attain economic self-
     sufficiency.
       (d) Housing Quality Standards.--
       (1) Compliance.--A participating jurisdiction shall ensure 
     that housing assisted with amounts received pursuant to this 
     title is maintained in a condition that complies--
       (A) in the case of housing located in a jurisdiction which 
     has in effect laws, regulations, standards, or codes 
     regarding habitability of residential dwellings, with such 
     applicable laws, regulations, standards, or codes; or
       (B) in the case of housing located in a jurisdiction which 
     does not have in effect laws, regulations, standards, or 
     codes described in paragraph (1), with housing quality 
     standards established under paragraph (2).
       (2) Federal housing quality standards.--the Secretary shall 
     establish housing quality standards under this paragraph that 
     ensure that dwelling units assisted under this title 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 extend practicable, be 
     consistent with the standards established under sections 
     232(b) and 328(c). The Secretary shall differentiate between 
     major and minor violations of such standards.
       (e) Number of Families Assisted.--A participating 
     jurisdiction shall ensure that, in providing assistance with 
     amounts received pursuant to this title in each fiscal year, 
     not less than substantially the same total number of eligible 
     low-income families are assisted as would have been assisted 
     had the amounts of covered housing assistance not been 
     combined for use under this title.
       (f) Consistency With Welfare Program.--A participating 
     jurisdiction shall ensure that assistance provided with 
     amounts received pursuant to this title is provided in a 
     manner that is consistent with the welfare, public 
     assistance, or other economic self-sufficiency programs 
     operating in the jurisdiction by facilitating the transition 
     of assisted families to work, which may include requiring 
     compliance with the requirements under such welfare, public 
     assistance, or self-sufficiency programs as a condition of 
     receiving housing assistance with amounts provided under this 
     title.
       (g) Treatment of Currently Assisted Families.--
       (1) Continuation of assistance.--A participating 
     jurisdiction shall ensure that each family that was receiving 
     housing assistance or residing in an assisted dwelling unit 
     pursuant to any of the programs included as covered housing 
     assistance immediately before the jurisdiction initially 
     provides assistance pursuant to this title shall be offered 
     assistance or an assisted dwelling unit under the program of 
     the jurisdiction under this title.
       (2) Phase-in of rent contribution increases.--For any 
     family that was receiving housing assistance pursuant to any 
     of the programs included as covered housing assistance 
     immediately before the jurisdiction initially provides 
     assistance pursuant to this title, if the monthly 
     contribution for rental of a dwelling unit assisted under 
     this title to be paid by the family upon initial 
     applicability of this title is greater than the amount paid 
     by the family 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 contributions before initial applicability.
       (h) Amount of Assistance.--In providing housing assistance 
     using amounts received pursuant to this title, the amount of 
     assistance provided by a participating jurisdiction on behalf 
     of each assisted low-income family shall be sufficient so 
     that if the family used such assistance to rent a dwelling 
     unit having a rent equal to the 40th percentile of rents for 
     standard quality rental units of the same size and type in 
     the same market area, the contribution toward rental paid by 
     the family would be affordable (as such term is defined by 
     the jurisdiction) to the family.
       (i) Portability.--A participating jurisdiction shall ensure 
     that financial assistance for housing provided with amounts 
     received pursuant to this title may be used by a family 
     moving from an assisted dwelling unit located within the 
     jurisdiction to obtain a dwelling unit located outside of the 
     jurisdiction.
       (j) Preferences.--In providing housing assistance using 
     amounts received pursuant to this title, a participating 
     jurisdiction may establish a system for making housing 
     assistance available that provides preference for assistance 
     to families having certain characteristics. A system of 
     preferences established pursuant to this subsection shall be 
     based on local housing needs and priorities, as determined by 
     the jurisdiction using generally accepted data sources.
       (k) Community Work Requirement.--
       (1) Applicability of requirements for pha's.--Except as 
     provided in paragraph (2), participating jurisdictions, 
     families assisted with amounts received pursuant to this 
     title, and dwelling units assisted with amounts received 
     pursuant to this title, shall be subject to the provisions of 
     section 105 of the same extent that such provisions apply 
     with respect to public housing agencies, families residing in 
     public housing dwelling units and families assisted under 
     title III, and public housing dwelling units and dwelling 
     units assisted under title III.
       (2) Local community service alternative.--Paragraph (1) 
     shall not apply to a participating jurisdiction that, 
     pursuant to approval by the Secretary of a proposal included 
     in the application under section 406, is carrying out a local 
     program that is designed to foster community service by 
     families assisted with amounts received pursuant to this 
     title.
       (l) Income targeting.--In providing housing assistance 
     using amounts received pursuant to this title in any fiscal 
     year, a participating jurisdiction shall ensure that the 
     number of families having incomes that do not exceed 30 
     percent of the area median income that are initially assisted 
     under this title during such fiscal year is not less than 
     substantially the same number of families having such incomes 
     that would be initially assisted in such jurisdiction during 
     such fiscal year under titles II and III pursuant to sections 
     222(c) and 321(b)).

     SEC. 405. APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS.

       (a) Public Housing Demolition and Disposition 
     Requirements.--Section 261 shall continue to apply to public 
     housing notwithstanding any use of the housing under this 
     title.
       (b) Labor Standards.--Section 112 shall apply to housing 
     assisted with amounts provided pursuant to this title, other 
     than housing assisted solely due to occupancy by families 
     receiving tenant-based assistance.

     SEC. 406. APPLICATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide for 
     jurisdictions to submit applications to receive and use 
     covered housing assistance amounts as authorized in this 
     title for periods of not less than 1 and not more than 5 
     fiscal years. An application--
       (1) shall be submitted only after the jurisdiction provides 
     for citizen participation through a public hearing and, if 
     appropriate, other means;
       (2) shall include a plan developed by the jurisdiction for 
     the provision of housing assistance with amounts received 
     pursuant to this title that takes into consideration comments 
     from the public hearing and any other public comments on the 
     proposed program, and comments from current and prospective 
     residents who would be affected, and that includes criteria 
     for meeting each of the requirements under section 404 and 
     this title;
       (3) shall describe how the plan for use of amounts will 
     assist in meeting the goals set forth in section 401;
       (4) shall propose standards for measuring performance in 
     using assistance provided pursuant to this title based on the 
     performance standards under subsection (b)(2);
       (5) shall propose the length of the period for which the 
     jurisdiction is applying for assistance under this title; and
       (6) may include a request assistance for training and 
     technical assistance to assist with design of the program and 
     to participate in a detailed evaluation.
       (7) shall--
       (A) in the case of the application of any jurisdiction 
     within whose boundaries are areas subject to any other unit 
     of general local government, include the signed consent of 
     the appropriate executive official of such unit to the 
     application; and
       (B) in the case of the application of a consortia of units 
     of general local government (as provided under section 
     409(1)(B)), include the signed consent of the appropriate 
     executive officials of each unit included in the consortia;
       (8) shall include information sufficient, in the 
     determination of the Secretary--
       (A) to demonstrate that the jurisdiction has or will have 
     management and administrative capacity sufficient to carry 
     out the plan under paragraph (2);
       (B) to demonstrate that carrying out the plan will not 
     result in excessive duplication of administrative efforts and 
     costs, particularly with respect to activities performed by 
     public housing agencies operating within the boundaries of 
     the jurisdiction;
       (C) to describe the function and activities to be carried 
     out by such public housing agencies affected by the plan; and
       (D) to demonstrate that the amounts received by the 
     jurisdiction will be maintained separate from other funds 
     available to the jurisdiction and will be used only to carry 
     out the plan; and
       (9) shall include information describing how the 
     jurisdiction will make decisions regarding asset management 
     of housing for low-income families under programs for covered 
     housing assistance or assisted with grant amounts under this 
     title.
     A plan required under paragraph (2) to be included in the 
     application may be contained in a memorandum of agreement or 
     other document executed by a jurisdiction and public housing 
     agency, if such document is submitted together with the 
     application.
       (b) Review, Approval, and Performance Standards.--
       (1) Review.--The Secretary shall review applications for 
     assistance pursuant to this title. If the Secretary 
     determines that the application complies with the 
     requirements of this title, the Secretary shall offer to 
     enter into an agreement with jurisdiction providing for 
     assistance pursuant to this title and incorporating a 
     requirement that the jurisdiction achieve a particular level 
     of performance in each of the areas for which performance 
     standards are established under paragraph (2). If the 
     Secretary determines that an application does not comply with 
     the

[[Page H2410]]

     requirements of this title, the Secretary shall notify the 
     jurisdiction submitting the application of the reasons for 
     such disapproval and actions that may be taken to make the 
     application approvable. Upon approving or disapproving an 
     application under this paragraph, the Secretary shall make 
     such determination publicly available in writing together 
     with a written statement of the reasons for such 
     determination.
       (2) Performance standards.--The Secretary shall establish 
     standards for measuring performance of jurisdictions in the 
     following areas:
       (A) Success in moving dependent low-income families to 
     economic self-sufficiency.
       (B) Success in reducing the numbers of long-term homeless 
     families.
       (C) Decrease in the per-family cost of providing 
     assistance.
       (D) Reduction of excessive geographic concentration of 
     assisted families.
       (E) Any other performance goals that the Secretary may 
     prescribe.
       (3) Approval.--If the Secretary and a jurisdiction that the 
     Secretary determines has submitted an application meeting the 
     requirements of this title enter into an agreement 
     referred to in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall approve 
     the application and provide covered housing assistance for 
     the jurisdiction in the manner authorized under this 
     title. The Secretary may not approve any application for 
     assistance pursuant to this title unless the Secretary and 
     jurisdiction enter into an agreement referred to in 
     paragraph (1). The Secretary shall establish requirements 
     for the approval of applications under this section 
     submitted by public housing agencies designated under 
     section 533(a) as troubled, which may include additional 
     or different criteria determined by the Secretary to be 
     more appropriate for such agencies.
       (c) Status of PHA's.--Nothing in this section or title may 
     be construed to require any change in the legal status of any 
     public housing agency or in any legal relationship between a 
     jurisdiction and a public housing agency as a condition of 
     participation in the program under this title.

     SEC. 407. TRAINING.

       The Secretary, in consultation with representatives of 
     public and assisted housing interests, shall provide training 
     and technical assistance relating to providing assistance 
     under this title and conduct detailed evaluations of up to 30 
     jurisdictions for the purpose of identifying replicable 
     program models that are successful at carrying out the 
     purposes of this title.

     SEC. 408. ACCOUNTABILITY.

       (a) Performance Goals.--The Secretary shall monitor the 
     performance of participating jurisdictions in providing 
     assistance pursuant to this title based on the performance 
     standards contained in the agreements entered into pursuant 
     to section 406(b)(1).
       (b) Keeping Records.--Each participating jurisdiction shall 
     keep such records as the Secretary may prescribe as 
     reasonably necessary to disclose the amounts and the 
     disposition of amounts provided pursuant to this title, to 
     ensure compliance with the requirements of this title and to 
     measure performance against the performance goals under 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Reports.--Each participating jurisdiction agency shall 
     submit to the Secretary a report, or series of reports, in a 
     form and at a time specified by the Secretary. The reports 
     shall--
       (1) document the use of funds made available under this 
     title;
       (2) provide such information as the Secretary may request 
     to assist the Secretary in assessing the program under this 
     title; and
       (3) describe and analyze the effect of assisted activities 
     in addressing the purposes of this title.
       (d) Access to Documents by Secretary.--The Secretary shall 
     have access for the purpose of audit and examination to any 
     books, documents, papers, and records that are pertinent to 
     assistance in connection with, and the requirements of, this 
     title.
       (e) Access to Documents by Comptroller General.--The 
     Comptroller General of the United States, or any of the duly 
     authorized representatives of the Comptroller General, shall 
     have access for the purpose of audit and examination to any 
     books, documents, papers, and records that are pertinent to 
     assistance in connection with, and the requirements of, this 
     title.

     SEC. 409. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title, the following definitions shall 
     apply:
       (1) Jurisdiction.--The term ``jurisdiction'' means--
       (A) a unit of general local government (as such term is 
     defined in section 104 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National 
     Affordable Housing Act) that has boundaries, for purposes of 
     carrying out this title, that--
       (i) wholly contain the area within which a public housing 
     agency is authorized to operate; and
       (ii) do not contain any areas contained within the 
     boundaries of any other participating jurisdiction; and
       (B) a consortia of such units of general local government, 
     organized for purposes of this title.
       (2) Participating jurisdiction.--The term ``participating 
     jurisdiction'' means, with respect to a period for which such 
     approval is made, a jurisdiction that has been approved under 
     section 406(b)(3) to receive assistance pursuant to this 
     title for such fiscal year.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title IV?


        amendment no. 13 offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts

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

       Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts:
       Page 220, strike line 12 and all that follows through line 
     12 on page 237 (and redesignate subsequent provisions and any 
     references to such provisions, and conform the table of 
     contents, accordingly).

  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I understand in speaking to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts that there is a proposed agreement to 
limit time to 20 minutes, 10 minutes controlled by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], 10 minutes controlled by myself. If that 
is acceptable to the gentleman from Massachusetts, if I could make that 
unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would amend the 
unanimous-consent request to go 5 and 5.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
is very generous and I accept it.
  The CHAIRMAN. And that includes all amendments thereto?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with, I think, one of the most 
devious and unfortunate elements in this bill, and, that is, the block 
granting of the entire title IV.
  H.R. 2, title IV, is simply a gigantic, untested block grant scheme. 
It will increase political influence over public housing authorities, 
increase HUD's cost and personnel, remove vital tenant protections, and 
create duplication of services that is simply unworkable.
  Quite simply, title IV permits local jurisdictions, most likely 
cities, to apply for the same public housing and section 8 assistance 
that is currently going to local public housing authorities. My 
amendment would simply eliminate the block grant scheme.
  First and foremost, I am concerned about the undue political 
influence. The worst public housing authorities are those that are 
controlled by local political influences. Why then would we try to 
increase such local political influences by giving the money directly 
to politicians?
  It expands HUD costs and personnel. At a time when the Republicans 
repeatedly criticize HUD, why do they want to increase the burden of 
HUD staff to create additional costs by requiring HUD to sift through 
potentially thousands and thousands of block grant proposals to 
evaluate who would do the best job at the local level?
  It removes tenant protections. Title IV removes vital Brooke 
protections and income targeting protections altogether.
  And it is redundant with the public housing authorities locally. We 
have heard a great deal of rhetoric about providing funding back to the 
local folks. That is fine. I am not sure that that means we hand it to 
the local cities themselves. We want to make sure that the public 
housing goes to people that have housing knowledge and housing as their 
priority.
  First, it is unclear why we should allow redundant, separate local 
jurisdictions to compete with each other for the administration of 
Federal housing assistance. We already have procedures to take over the 
administration of badly run or badly managed public housing 
authorities.
  Title IV as proposed under the bill is opposed by several 
organizations, including the National Association of Housing and Rural 
Development Agencies, NAHRO; the Council of Large Public Housing 
Authorities; and the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association. 
All are uniquely and uniformly opposed to this.
  The Council of Large Public Housing Authorities says:

       Title IV ignores the well-documented history of public 
     housing: excessive direct involvement of local elected 
     officials in the operations has frequently resulted in 
     patronage employment, corrupt contracting practices

[[Page H2411]]

     and troubled PHA's. One need look no further than out your 
     window for a prime example, the District of Columbia Housing 
     Authority, which is now being revived under an able receiver 
     after years of costly decline.

  According to the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association, 
PHADA believes, quote, that the home rule plan is ill-advised because 
it could very well detract scant housing funds from their intended 
purpose. Indeed, in the few instances where the locality has had a 
significant amount of control over the local housing authority's 
operation, Washington D.C. and New Orleans, for example, disastrous 
results have occurred.
  And NAHRO also supports this amendment which deletes title IV of the 
bill. It says, quote, as we have expressed to Chairman Lazio, NAHRO 
supports what we believe to be the desire to foster local innovation 
and greater working relationships between housing authorities and local 
governments. However, we believe the provision, as currently drafted, 
is not the proper vehicle to accomplish that purpose.
  The NAHRO chapter in my own home State of Massachusetts noted, ``The 
home rule block grant program potentially could mean the end of low-
income public housing, with our own local officials dealing the death 
blow. This is a very bad idea.''
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Title IV of this bill would provide maximum flexibility for new 
ideas, new innovation. It does not preclude the housing authorities 
from participating in the new idea. It simply says that a municipal 
leader, a mayor, would be able to come forward and suggest a plan to 
HUD with certain protections that are built into the bill, including 
protecting the same amount of low-income people in terms of housing 
that would be true if we did not choose this option.
  What we are trying to do is to allow the creative inspiration of 
people at the municipal level to put forward plans subject to the 
approval of the Federal Government, the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. There are protections that are built into this plan. For 
example, rent-setting protections are built into this plan serving the 
same amount of low income people; that is built into the plan. But we 
are trying to develop a system in which local leaders like mayors are 
more inclined to invest their own resources in economic development and 
housing for low-income people.
  Right now we have had mayors testify before the committee that they 
are not inclined to invest their own dollars into their own cities 
because they feel removed from the decisionmaking, because they feel 
they have no valid input. But if they were included in it, if they were 
allowed to participate, they would bring the full panoply of resources 
at the disposal of municipalities in a creative way, in an integrated 
way, to help deal with the root causes of poverty and to address the 
housing concerns of that individual or that particular community.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record 
the following letter from the National League of Cities. The National 
League of Cities supports this amendment.
                                        National League of Cities,


                                 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,

                                      Washington, DC, May 1, 1997.
     Hon. Joseph Kennedy,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Kennedy: The National League of Cities 
     (NLC) urges you to vote no on H.R. 2, the ``Housing 
     Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 1997,'' and to support 
     a superior substitute bill which will be offered by Joseph P. 
     Kennedy, II during floor debate in the House this week. We 
     are especially opposed to the proposed repeal of the ``United 
     States Housing Act of 1937'' and the proposal to give the 
     Administration authority to impose sanctions on cities and 
     towns.
       H.R. 2 would repeal the ``United States Housing Act of 
     1937'' which has provided the underpinning for the Department 
     of Housing and Urban Development's basic purpose for more 
     than 60 years. The Act set a national goal to provide every 
     American with safe, sanitary, affordable housing. In NLC's 
     National Municipal Policy, our housing goal is to ``provide 
     for every American a decent home in a suitable living 
     environment with adequate financial stability to maintain 
     it.'' We believe that abandoning this basic goal would be a 
     disservice to every American who is struggling to provide 
     adequately for his or her family. Housing is essential if 
     families are to be safe and if those responsible for food and 
     shelter are to seek and find permanent employment.
       The bill would also propose new sanctions on cities and 
     towns over the condition of a municipality's public housing 
     authority. This implies there is a cause and effect when, in 
     fact, the federal government and some state governments have 
     far greater and more effective control over public housing 
     authorities than mayors and city councils. In most cities and 
     towns, the local government may have the authority to appoint 
     members to the PHA board when a vacancy occurs. This is the 
     extent of local control.
       We oppose the inclusion of the Community Development Block 
     Grant sanction on cities included in H.R. 2. This sanction 
     would be imposed by the Secretary of HUD by withholding or 
     redirecting a city's CDBG funding for an indefinite period of 
     time. This sanction would go into effect if the Secretary 
     determines that a PHA has become troubled due to the action 
     or inaction of local government.
       NLC has fought this provision since it first appeared in 
     last year's public housing reform bill, H.R. 2406. It is ill-
     conceived and unnecessarily punitive. NLC has recommended 
     that any public housing reform bill include incentives to 
     encourage cooperation between cities and public housing 
     authorities (PHAs). It would be much more appropriate to 
     recommend positive remedial actions long before imposing 
     sanctions. Also, sponsors of this provision can only sight 
     four cities that have ``substantially'' contributed to the 
     troubled status of their PHAs. They are Chicago, New Orleans, 
     Detroit, and Camden, N.J. It is extreme to threaten to 
     sanction the other 3,395 local governments with PHAs in their 
     communities.
       Let me thank you in advance for your support of 
     constructive reform of public housing, an essential national 
     housing resource.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Mark Schwartz,
                                                        President.

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], the former chairman of 
the full committee.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise very strongly to support the 
Kennedy amendment. I find this home rule flexible block grant program 
just simply outrageous and it must be struck from the bill.
  I can recall the horrendous times when there were no such things as 
housing assistance programs. I recall vividly families in the most 
distressed areas of our area in and around my hometown that I would 
visit as I had worked as a chief two-and-out probation officer for a 
while and would find these hovels with dirt floors and no privy or 
anything. Those were horrendous times. The way we are going, we are 
going right back to them.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], a distinguished member of the 
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity of the Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we have to go back and remember what the 
situation is. In some parts of the country, the public housing agencies 
and programs they run for the working poor, for the poor, for less 
privileged Americans, are an absolute disgrace. We are trying to 
provide some innovation here, some flexibility so that innovation can 
come forth. What is being proposed to be struck here is the home rule 
flexibility grant option.
  Let us take a look briefly at what we are attempting to do here. We 
are trying to encourage innovation in housing programs at the local 
level. We are trying to give localities the ability to present to HUD 
an alternative plan to provide housing for the community. This is where 
we have the troubled housing authorities that have failed.
  Currently there is very little incentive for local leaders to attempt 
to solve some of the problems in local housing. In some cases they have 
no option. The public housing authority operates as a very separate 
entity. There are also no incentives really for local leaders to 
contribute scarce resources where needed.
  Title IV tells local leaders if they are serious about making 
contributions to solving some of the problems of housing in their 
communities, then they are going to be given the flexibility to

[[Page H2412]]

do that. Everything, however, requires HUD approval, ensuring a 
responsible Federal oversight role in the process, despite what we 
might have heard a few minutes ago.
  In an attempt to accommodate and to take into account some of the 
concerns raised in the committee or at subcommittee discussions 
earlier, there are a number of protections in the manager's amendment 
that has been adopted.
  For example, we require that the Secretary ensure that the 
jurisdiction has management capability to carry out the plan they 
propose. Second, the plan does not lead to excessive duplication of 
administrative efforts. Third, the plan demonstrates the functions and 
the activities of the local PHA.
  Next, it ensures housing funds are specifically used for housing 
purposes by requiring a separate housing fund, so these funds cannot be 
diverted for other purposes, to suit the mayor's attention.
  It provides an opportunity for the PHA to comment upon the 
alternative plan. They are not shut out of the process. It provides 
flexibility to the HUD Secretary to establish different requirements 
for troubled housing authorities. It requires jurisdictional consent 
when there are other cross-jurisdictional concerns. And it clarifies 
that this title, title IV, does not require a city government takeover 
or legal status change of the PHA.
  The flexibility is there, the protections are there to the American 
taxpayer, to the people in the community who are not being served well 
now by these troubled housing authorities. This is a basic and 
important reform. We need to keep title IV in and reject the amendment.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, 
if we might, to allow the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], the 
former chairman, the ranking member, 2 additional minutes to complete 
his statement.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] is recognized 
for 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
very much because this goes to the very essence of my presence in the 
United States House of Representatives.
  I came from my hometown with a housing background and can recall 
vividly, and I am old enough to, the outrageous situation that was 
costing lives and the city, my home city, the dubious distinction of 
the tuberculosis capital of the country. We are fast pulling the clock 
back if we continue.
  Mr. Chairman, there are no guarantees that the current public housing 
inventory will have to be maintained under this because there are no 
guarantees that the public housing authorities will receive funding 
from the city. This is not only outrageous, it is inviting the 
disinvestment in $90 billion of Federal investment, and of course it is 
duplicative.
  Indeed, the cities may choose to start up a new quote, unquote, 
public housing program and let the current housing inventory 
deteriorate. But the reason we came to the Federal level is that the 
cities and the States and the counties would not do anything. That has 
been the history of all of our social legislation.
  I know that there is a provision which protects the public housing 
authorities from disillusion, disillusion, but there are no similar 
protections that they will be given the money to operate with. It is 
somewhat ironic that with this block grant we could be taking money 
from the public housing authorities that this legislation purports to 
support. After all, the goal of this legislation is to provide housing 
authorities with the flexibility they need to operate and to untie 
their hands from unnecessary rules, regulations and requirements.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, let me just say I think, to 
paraphrase a 20th century President, we have nothing to fear but fear 
itself on this, and what we want to do is create the sense of ideas of 
innovation. We should not be afraid of new ideas, we should not be 
afraid of allowing a local elected leader to come forward and say I 
think I have a better way of doing it, I think we can develop a better 
partnership, I think that maybe in our community, in our community, 
that the fixed way of having a public housing authority may not be 
necessarily the best way. We may want to have a joint venture with the 
public housing authority, we may want to have not-for-profits work 
along with them or community development corporations or resident-
inspired groups.
  The idea behind this provision of the bill would be subject to the 
provisions of protection that are already in the bill to provide the 
level of creativity, innovation, and this amendment would strike that, 
and for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 133, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] will be postponed.


        Vacating Vote on Amendment No. 18 Offered By Mr. Nadler

  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
vacate the vote with regard to amendment No. 18 offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] and that the Chair restate the 
question.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title IV?
  The Clerk will designate title V.
  The text of title V is as follows:
    TITLE V--ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT OF PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCIES
Subtitle A--Study of Alternative Methods for Evaluating Public Housing 
                                Agencies

     SEC. 501. IN GENERAL.

       The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall 
     provide under section 505 for a study to be conducted to 
     determine the effectiveness of various alternative methods of 
     evaluating the performance of public housing agencies and 
     other providers of federally assisted housing.

     SEC. 502. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of the study under this subtitle shall be--
       (1) to identify and examine various methods of evaluating 
     and improving the performance of public housing agencies in 
     administering public housing and tenant-based rental 
     assistance programs and of other providers of federally 
     assisted housing, which are alternatives to oversight by the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development; and
       (2) to identify specific monitoring and oversight 
     activities currently conducted by the Department of Housing 
     and Urban Development that are insufficient or ineffective in 
     accurately and efficiently assessing the performance of 
     public housing agencies and other providers of federally 
     assisted housing, and to evaluate whether such activities 
     should be eliminated, modified, or transferred to other 
     entities (including government and private entities) to 
     increase accuracy and effectiveness and improve monitoring.

     SEC. 503. EVALUATION OF VARIOUS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 
                   SYSTEMS.

       To carry out the purpose under section 502(1), the study 
     under this subtitle shall identify, and analyze and assess 
     the costs and benefits of, the following methods of 
     regulating and evaluating the performance of public housing 
     agencies and other providers of federally assisted housing:
       (1) Current system.--The system pursuant to the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect upon the enactment 
     of this Act), including the methods and requirements under 
     such system for reporting, auditing, reviewing, sanctioning, 
     and monitoring of such agencies and housing providers and the 
     public housing management assessment program pursuant to 
     subtitle C of this title (and section 6(j) of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect upon the enactment 
     of this Act)).
       (2) Accreditation models.--Various models that are based 
     upon accreditation of such agencies and housing providers, 
     subject to the following requirements:

[[Page H2413]]

       (A) The study shall identify and analyze various models 
     used in other industries and professions for accreditation 
     and determine the extent of their applicability to the 
     programs for public housing and federally assisted housing.
       (B) If any accreditation models are determined to be 
     applicable to the public and federally assisted housing 
     programs, the study shall identify appropriate goals, 
     objectives, and procedures for an accreditation program for 
     such agencies housing providers.
       (C) The study shall evaluate the effectiveness of 
     establishing an independent accreditation and evaluation 
     entity to assist, supplement, or replace the role of the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development in assessing and 
     monitoring the performance of such agencies and housing 
     providers.
       (D) The study shall identify the necessary and appropriate 
     roles and responsibilities of various entities that would be 
     involved in an accreditation program, including the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Inspector 
     General of the Department, an accreditation entity, 
     independent auditors and examiners, local entities, and 
     public housing agencies.
       (E) The study shall determine the costs involved in 
     developing and maintaining such an independent accreditation 
     program.
       (F) The study shall analyze the need for technical 
     assistance to assist public housing agencies in improving 
     performance and identify the most effective methods to 
     provide such assistance.
       (3) Performance based models.--Various performance-based 
     models, including systems that establish performance goals or 
     targets, assess the compliance with such goals or targets, 
     and provide for incentives or sanctions based on performance 
     relative to such goals or targets.
       (4) Local review and monitoring models.--Various models 
     providing for local, resident, and community review and 
     monitoring of such agencies and housing providers, including 
     systems for review and monitoring by local and State 
     governmental bodies and agencies.
       (5) Private models.--Various models using private 
     contractors for review and monitoring of such agencies and 
     housing providers.
       (6) Other models.--Various models of any other systems that 
     may be more effective and efficient in regulating and 
     evaluating such agencies and housing providers.

     SEC. 504. CONSULTATION.

       The entity that, pursuant to section 505, carries out the 
     study under this subtitle shall, in carrying out the study, 
     consult with individuals and organization experienced in 
     managing public housing, private real estate managers, 
     representatives from State and local governments, residents 
     of public housing, families and individuals receiving choice- 
     or tenant-based assistance, the Secretary of Housing and 
     Urban Development, the Inspector General of the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development, and the Comptroller General of 
     the United States.

     SEC. 505. CONTRACT TO CONDUCT STUDY.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary 
     shall enter into a contract with a public or nonprofit 
     private entity to conduct the study under this subtitle, 
     using amounts made available pursuant to section 507.
       (b) National Academy of Public Administration.--The 
     Secretary shall request the National Academy of Public 
     Administration to enter into the contract under paragraph (1) 
     to conduct the study under this subtitle. If such Academy 
     declines to conduct the study, the Secretary shall carry out 
     such paragraph through other public or nonprofit private 
     entities.

     SEC. 506. REPORT.

       (a) Interim Report.--The Secretary shall ensure that not 
     later than the expiration of the 6-month period beginning on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the entity conducting 
     the study under this subtitle submits to the Congress an 
     interim report describing the actions taken to carry out the 
     study, the actions to be taken to complete the study, and any 
     findings and recommendations available at the time.
       (b) Final Report.--The Secretary shall ensure that--
       (1) not later than the expiration of the 12-month period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the study 
     required under this subtitle is completed and a report 
     describing the findings and recommendations as a result of 
     the study is submitted to the Congress; and
       (2) before submitting the report under this subsection to 
     the Congress, the report is submitted to the Secretary and 
     national organizations for public housing agencies at such 
     time to provide the Secretary and such agencies an 
     opportunity to review the report and provide written comments 
     on the report, which shall be included together with the 
     report upon submission to the Congress under paragraph (1).

     SEC. 507. FUNDING.

       Of any amounts made available under title V of the Housing 
     and Urban Development Act of 1970 for policy development and 
     research for fiscal year 1998, $500,000 shall be available to 
     carry out this subtitle.

     SEC. 508. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This subtitle shall take effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
         Subtitle B--Housing Evaluation and Accreditation Board

     SEC. 521. ESTABLISHMENT.

       (a) In General.--There is established an independent agency 
     in the executive branch of the Government to be known as the 
     Housing Foundation and Accreditation Board (in this title 
     referred to as the ``Board'').
       (b) Requirement for Congressional Review of Study.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, sections 
     523, 524, and 525 shall not take effect and the Board shall 
     not have any authority to take any action under such sections 
     (or otherwise) unless there is enacted a law specifically 
     providing for the repeal of this subsection. This subsection 
     may not be construed to prevent the appointment of the Board 
     under section 522.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 522. MEMBERSHIP.

       (a) In General.--The Board shall be composed of 12 members 
     appointed by the President not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the final report regarding the study required under 
     subtitle A is submitted to the Congress pursuant to section 
     506(b), as follows:
       (1) 4 members shall be appointed from among 10 individuals 
     recommended by the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development.
       (2) 4 members shall be appointed from among 10 individuals 
     recommended by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of 
     the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 
     Senate.
       (3) 4 members appointed from among 10 individuals 
     recommended by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of 
     the Committee on Banking and Financial Services of the House 
     of Representatives.
       (b) Qualifications.--
       (1) Required representation.--The Board shall at all times 
     have the following members:
       (A) 2 members who are residents of public housing or 
     dwelling units assisted under title III of this Act or the 
     provisions of section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937 (as in effect before the effective date of the repeal 
     under section 601(b) of this Act).
       (B) At least 2, but not more than 4 members who are 
     executive directors of public housing agencies.
       (C) 1 member who is a member of the Institute of Real 
     Estate Managers.
       (D) 1 member who is the owner of a multifamily housing 
     project assisted under a program administered by the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
       (2) Required experience.--The Board shall at all times have 
     as members individuals with the following experience:
       (A) At least 1 individual who has extensive experience in 
     the residential real estate finance business.
       (B) At least 1 individual who has extensive experience in 
     operating a nonprofit organization that provides affordable 
     housing.
       (C) At least 1 individual who has extensive experience in 
     construction of multifamily housing.
       (D) At least 1 individual who has extensive experience in 
     the management of a community development corporation.
       (E) At least 1 individual who has extensive experience in 
     auditing participants in government programs.

     A single member of the board with the appropriate experience 
     may satisfy the requirements of more than 1 subparagraph of 
     this paragraph. A single member of the board with the 
     appropriate qualifications and experience may satisfy the 
     requirements of a subparagraph of paragraph (1) and a 
     subparagraph of this paragraph.
       (c) Political Affiliation.--Not more than 6 members of the 
     Board may be of the same political party.
       (d) Terms.--
       (1) In general.--Each member of the Board shall be 
     appointed for a term of 4 years, except as provided in 
     paragraphs (2) and (3).
       (2) Terms of initial appointees.--As designated by the 
     President at the time of appointment, of the members first 
     appointed--
       (A) 3 shall be appointed for terms of 1 year;
       (B) 3 shall be appointed for terms of 2 years;
       (C) 3 shall be appointed for terms of 3 years; and
       (D) 3 shall be appointed for terms of 4 years.
       (3) Vacancies.--Any member appointed to fill a vacancy 
     occurring before the expiration of the term for which the 
     member's predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only 
     for the remainder of that term. A member may serve after the 
     expiration of that member's term until a successor has taken 
     office. A vacancy in the Board shall be filled in the manner 
     in which the original appointment was made.
       (e) Chairperson.--The Board shall elect a chairperson from 
     among members of the Board.
       (f) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Board shall 
     constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
       (g) Voting.--Each member of the Board shall be entitled to 
     1 vote, which shall be equal to the vote of every other 
     member of the Board.
       (h) Prohibition on Additional Pay.--Members of the Board 
     shall serve without compensation, but shall be reimbursed for 
     travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred in 
     the performance of their duties as members of the Board.

     SEC. 523. FUNCTIONS.

       The purpose of this subtitle is to establish the Board as a 
     nonpolitical entity to carry out, not later than the 
     expiration of the 12-month period beginning upon the 
     appointment under section 522 of all of the initial

[[Page H2414]]

     members of the Board (or such other date as may be provided 
     by law), the following functions:
       (1) Establishment of performance benchmarks.--The Board 
     shall establish standards and guidelines for use by the Board 
     in measuring the performance and efficiency of public housing 
     agencies and other owners and providers of federally assisted 
     housing in carrying out operational and financial functions. 
     The standards and guidelines shall be designed to replace the 
     public housing management assessment program under section 
     6(j) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect 
     before the enactment of this Act) and improve the evaluation 
     of the performance of housing providers relative to such 
     program. In establishing such standards and guidelines, the 
     Board shall consult with the Secretary, the Inspector General 
     of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and such 
     other persons and entities as the Board considers 
     appropriate.
       (2) Establishment of accreditation procedure and 
     accreditation.--The Board shall--
       (A) establish a procedure for the Board to accredit public 
     housing agencies to receive block grants under title II for 
     the operation, maintenance, and production of public housing 
     and amounts for housing assistance under title III, based on 
     the performance of agencies, as measured by the performance 
     benchmarks established under paragraph (1) and any audits and 
     reviews of agencies; and
       (B) commence the review and accreditation of public housing 
     agencies under the procedures established under subparagraph 
     (A).

     In carrying out the functions under this section, the Board 
     shall take into consideration the findings and 
     recommendations contained in the report issued under section 
     506(b).

     SEC. 524. POWERS.

       (a) Hearings.--The Board may, for the purpose of carrying 
     out this subtitle, hold such hearings and sit and act at such 
     times and places as the Board determines appropriate.
       (b) Rules and Regulations.--The Board may adopt such rules 
     and regulations as may be necessary to establish its 
     procedures and to govern the manner of its operations, 
     organization, and personnel.
       (c) Assistance From Federal Agencies.--
       (1) Information.--The Board may secure directly from any 
     department or agency of the Federal Government such 
     information as the Board may require for carrying out its 
     functions, including public housing agency plans submitted to 
     the Secretary by public housing agencies under title I. Upon 
     request of the Board, any such department or agency shall 
     furnish such information.
       (2) General services administration.--The Administrator of 
     General Services shall provide to the Board, on a 
     reimbursable basis, such administrative support services as 
     the Board may request.
       (3) Department of housing and urban development.--Upon the 
     request of the chairperson of the Board, the Secretary of 
     Housing and Urban Development shall, to the extent possible 
     and subject to the discretion of the Secretary, detail any of 
     the personnel of the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development, on a nonreimbursable basis, to assist the Board 
     in carrying out its functions under this subtitle.
       (4) HUD inspector general.--The Inspector General of the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development shall serve the 
     Board as a principal adviser with respect to all aspects of 
     audits of public housing agencies. The Inspector General may 
     advise the Board with respect to other activities and 
     functions of the Board.
       (d) Mails.--The Board may use the United States mails in 
     the same manner and under the same conditions as other 
     Federal agencies.
       (e) Contracting.--The Board may, to such extent and in such 
     amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, enter into 
     contracts with private firms, institutions, and individuals 
     for the purpose of conducting evaluations of public housing 
     agencies, audits of public housing agencies, and research and 
     surveys necessary to enable the Board to discharge its 
     functions under this subtitle.
       (f) Staff.--
       (1) Executive director.--The Board shall appoint an 
     executive director of the Board, who shall be compensated at 
     a rate fixed by the Board, but which shall not exceed the 
     rate established for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (2) Other personnel.--In addition to the executive 
     director, the Board may appoint and fix the compensation of 
     such personnel as the Board considers necessary, in 
     accordance with the provisions of title 5, United States 
     Code, governing appointments to the competitive service, and 
     the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 
     of such title, relating to classification and General 
     Schedule pay rates.
       (g) Access to Documents.--The Board shall have access for 
     the purposes of carrying out its functions under this 
     subtitle to any books, documents, papers, and records of a 
     public housing agency to which the Secretary has access under 
     this Act.

     SEC. 525. FEES.

       (a) Accreditation Fees.--The Board may establish and charge 
     reasonable fees for the accreditation of public housing 
     agencies as the Board considers necessary to cover the costs 
     of the operations of the Board relating to its functions 
     under section 523.
       (b) Fund.--Any fees collected under this section shall be 
     deposited in an operations fund for the Board, which is 
     hereby established in the Treasury of the United States. 
     Amounts in such fund shall be available, to the extent 
     provided in appropriation Acts, for the expenses of the Board 
     in carrying out its functions under this subtitle.

     SEC. 526. GAO AUDIT.

       The activities and transactions of the Board shall be 
     subject to audit by the Comptroller General of the United 
     States under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed 
     by the Comptroller General. The representatives of the 
     General Accounting Office shall have access for the purpose 
     of audit and examination to any books, documents, papers, and 
     records of the Board that are necessary to facilitate an 
     audit.
    Subtitle C--Interim Applicability of Public Housing Management 
                           Assessment Program

     SEC. 531. INTERIM APPLICABILITY.

       This subtitle shall be effective only during the period 
     that begins on the effective date of this Act and ends upon 
     the date of the effectiveness of the standards and procedures 
     required under section 523.

     SEC. 532. MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT INDICATORS.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall develop and publish 
     in the Federal Register indicators to assess the management 
     performance of public housing agencies and other entities 
     managing public housing (including resident management 
     corporations, independent managers pursuant to section 236, 
     and management entities pursuant to subtitle D). The 
     indicators shall be established by rule under section 553 of 
     title 5, United States Code. Such indicators shall enable the 
     Secretary to evaluate the performance of public housing 
     agencies and such other managers of public housing in all 
     major areas of management operations.
       (b) Content.--The management assessment indicators shall 
     include the following indicators:
       (1) The number and percentage of vacancies within an 
     agency's or manager's inventory, including the progress that 
     an agency or manager has made within the previous 3 years to 
     reduce such vacancies.
       (2) The amount and percentage of funds obligated to the 
     public housing agency or manager from the capital fund or 
     under section 14 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as 
     in effect before the effective date of the repeal under 
     section 601(b) of this Act), which remain unexpended after 3 
     years.
       (3) The percentage of rents uncollected.
       (4) The energy consumption (with appropriate adjustments to 
     reflect different regions and unit sizes).
       (5) The average period of time that an agency or manager 
     requires to repair and turn-around vacant dwelling units.
       (6) The proportion of maintenance work orders outstanding, 
     including any progress that an agency or manager has made 
     during the preceding 3 years to reduce the period of time 
     required to complete maintenance work orders.
       (7) The percentage of dwelling units that an agency or 
     manager fails to inspect to ascertain maintenance or 
     modernization needs within such period of time as the 
     Secretary deems appropriate (with appropriate adjustments, if 
     any, for large and small agencies or managers).
       (8) The extent to which the rent policies of any public 
     housing agency establishing rental amounts in accordance with 
     section 225(b) comply with the requirement under section 
     225(c).
       (9) Whether the agency is providing acceptable basic 
     housing conditions, as determined by the Secretary.
       (10) Any other factors as the Secretary deems appropriate.
       (c) Considerations in Evaluation.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) administer the system of evaluating public housing 
     agencies and managers flexibly to ensure that agencies and 
     managers are not penalized as result of circumstances beyond 
     their control;
       (2) reflect in the weights assigned to the various 
     management assessment indicators the differences in the 
     difficulty of managing individual developments that result 
     from their physical condition and their neighborhood 
     environment; and
       (3) determine a public housing agency's or manager's status 
     as ``troubled with respect to modernization'' under section 
     533(b) based upon factors solely related to its ability to 
     carry out modernization activities.

     SEC. 533. DESIGNATION OF PHA'S.

       (a) Troubled PHA's.--The Secretary shall, under the 
     rulemaking procedures under section 553 of title 5, United 
     States Code, establish procedures for designating troubled 
     public housing agencies and managers, which procedures shall 
     include identification of serious and substantial failure to 
     perform as measured by (1) the performance indicators 
     specified under section 532 and such other factors as the 
     Secretary may deem to be appropriate; or (2) such other 
     evaluation system as is determined by the Secretary to assess 
     the condition of the public housing agency or other entity 
     managing public housing, which system may be in addition to 
     or in lieu of the performance indicators established under 
     section 532. Such procedures shall provide that an agency 
     that does not provide acceptable basic housing conditions 
     shall be designated a troubled public housing agency.
       (b) Agencies Troubled With Respect to Capital Activities.--
     The Secretary shall designate, by rule under section 553 of 
     title 5, United States Code, agencies and managers that are 
     troubled with respect to capital activities.

[[Page H2415]]

       (c) Agencies at Risk of Becoming Troubled.--The Secretary 
     shall designate, by rule under section 553 of title 5, United 
     States Code, agencies and managers that are at risk of 
     becoming troubled.
       (d) Exemplary Agencies.--The Secretary may also, in 
     consultation with national organizations representing public 
     housing agencies and managers and public officials (as the 
     Secretary determines appropriate), identify and commend 
     public housing agencies and managers that meet the 
     performance standards established under section 532 in an 
     exemplary manner.
       (e) Appeal of Designation.--The Secretary shall establish 
     procedures for public housing agencies and managers to appeal 
     designation as a troubled agency or manager (including 
     designation as a troubled agency or manager for purposes of 
     capital activities), to petition for removal of such 
     designation, and to appeal any refusal to remove such 
     designation.

     SEC. 534. ON-SITE INSPECTION OF TROUBLED PHA'S.

       (a) In General.--Upon designating a public housing agency 
     or manager as troubled pursuant to section 533 and 
     determining that an assessment under this section will not 
     duplicate any other review previously conducted or required 
     to be conducted of the agency or manager, the Secretary shall 
     provide for an on-site, independent assessment of the 
     management of the agency or manager.
       (b) Content.--To the extent the Secretary deems appropriate 
     (taking into consideration an agency's or manager's 
     performance under the indicators specified under section 532, 
     the assessment team shall also consider issues relating to 
     the agency's or manager's resident population and physical 
     inventory, including the extent to which--
       (1) the public housing agency plan for the agency or 
     manager adequately and appropriately addresses the 
     rehabilitation needs of the public housing inventory;
       (2) residents of the agency or manager are involved in and 
     informed of significant management decisions; and
       (3) any developments in the agency's or manager's inventory 
     are severely distressed (as such term is defined under 
     section 262.
       (c) Independent Assessment Team.--An independent assessment 
     under this section shall be carried out by a team of 
     knowledgeable individuals selected by the Secretary (referred 
     to in this title as the ``assessment team'') with expertise 
     in public housing and real estate management. In conducting 
     an assessment, the assessment team shall consult with the 
     residents and with public and private entities in the 
     jurisdiction in which the public housing is located. The 
     assessment team shall provide to the Secretary and the public 
     housing agency or manager a written report, which shall 
     contain, at a minimum, recommendations for such management 
     improvements as are necessary to eliminate or substantially 
     remedy existing deficiencies.

     SEC. 535. ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) PHA's.--The Secretary shall carry out this subtitle 
     with respect to public housing agencies substantially in the 
     same manner as the public housing management assessment 
     system under section 6(j) 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) was required to 
     be carried out with respect to public housing agencies. The 
     Secretary may comply with the requirements under this 
     subtitle by using any regulations issued to carry out such 
     system and issuing any additional regulations necessary to 
     make such system comply with the requirements under this 
     subtitle.
       (b) Other Managers.--The Secretary shall establish specific 
     standards and procedures for carrying out this subtitle with 
     respect to managers of public housing that are not public 
     housing agencies. Such standards and procedures shall take in 
     consideration special circumstances relating to entities 
     hired, directed, or appointed to manage public housing.
   Subtitle D--Accountability and Oversight Standards and Procedures

     SEC. 541. AUDITS.

       (a) By Secretary and Comptroller General.--Each block grant 
     contract under section 201 and each contract for housing 
     assistance amounts under section 302 shall provide that the 
     Secretary, the Inspector General of the Department of Housing 
     and Urban Development, and the Comptroller General of the 
     United States, or any of their duly authorized 
     representatives, shall, for the purpose of audit and 
     examination, have access to any books, documents, papers, and 
     records of the public housing agency (or other entity) 
     entering into such contract that are pertinent to this Act 
     and to its operations with respect to financial assistance 
     under the this Act.
       (b) By PHA.--
       (1) Requirement.--Each public housing agency that owns or 
     operates 250 or more public housing dwelling units and 
     receives assistance under this Act shall have an audit made 
     in accordance with chapter 75 of title 31, United States 
     Code. The Secretary, the Inspector General of the Department 
     of Housing and Urban Development, and the Comptroller General 
     of the United States shall have access to all books, 
     documents, papers, or other records that are pertinent to the 
     activities carried out under this Act in order to make audit 
     examinations, excerpts, and transcripts.
       (2) Withholding of amounts.--The Secretary may, in the sole 
     discretion of the Secretary, arrange for, and pay the costs 
     of, an audit required under paragraph (1). In such 
     circumstances, the Secretary may withhold, from assistance 
     otherwise payable to the agency under this Act, amounts 
     sufficient to pay for the reasonable costs of conducting an 
     acceptable audit, including, when appropriate, the reasonable 
     costs of accounting services necessary to place the agency's 
     books and records in auditable condition.

     SEC. 542. PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS FOR AUTHORITIES AT RISK OF 
                   BECOMING TROUBLED.

       (a) In General.--Upon designation of a public housing 
     agency as at risk of becoming troubled under section 533(c), 
     the Secretary shall seek to enter into an agreement with the 
     agency providing for improvement of the elements of the 
     agency that have been identified. An agreement under this 
     section shall contain such terms and conditions as the 
     Secretary determines are appropriate for addressing the 
     elements identified, which may include an on-site, 
     independent assessment of the management of the agency.
       (b) Powers of Secretary.--If the Secretary determines that 
     such action is necessary to prevent the public housing agency 
     from becoming a troubled agency, the Secretary may--
       (1) solicit competitive proposals from other public housing 
     agencies and private housing management agents (which may be 
     selected by existing tenants through administrative 
     procedures established by the Secretary), for any case in 
     which such agents may be needed for managing all, or part, of 
     the housing or functions administered by the agency; or
       (2) solicit competitive proposals from other public housing 
     agencies and private entities with experience in construction 
     management, for any case in which such authorities or firms 
     may be needed to oversee implementation of assistance made 
     available for capital improvement for public housing of the 
     agency.

     SEC. 543. PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS AND CDBG SANCTIONS FOR 
                   TROUBLED PHA'S.

       (a) In General.--Upon designation of a public housing 
     agency as a troubled agency under section 533(a) and after 
     reviewing the report submitted pursuant to section 534(c) and 
     consulting with the assessment team for the agency under 
     section 534, the Secretary shall seek to enter into an 
     agreement with the agency providing for improving the 
     management performance of the agency.
       (b) Contents.--An agreement under this section between the 
     Secretary and a public housing agency shall set forth--
       (1) targets for improving performance, as measured by the 
     guidelines and standards established under section 532 and 
     other requirements within a specified period of time, which 
     shall include targets to be met upon the expiration of the 
     12-month period beginning upon entering into the agreement;
       (2) strategies for meeting such targets;
       (3) sanctions for failure to implement such strategies; and
       (4) to the extent the Secretary deems appropriate, a plan 
     for enhancing resident involvement in the management of the 
     public housing agency.
       (c) Local Assistance in Implementation.--The Secretary and 
     the public housing agency shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, seek the assistance of local public and private 
     entities in carrying out an agreement under this section.
       (d) Default Under Performance Agreement.--Upon the 
     expiration of the 12-month period beginning upon entering 
     into an agreement under this section with a public housing 
     agency, the Secretary shall review the performance of the 
     agency in relation to the performance targets and strategies 
     under the agreement. If the Secretary determines that the 
     agency has failed to comply with the performance targets 
     established for such period, the Secretary shall take the 
     action authorized under subsection (b)(2) or (b)(5) of 
     section 545.
       (e) CDBG Sanction Against Local Government Contributing to 
     Troubled Status of PHA.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     actions or inaction of any unit of general local government 
     within which any portion of the jurisdiction of a public 
     housing agency is located has substantially contributed to 
     the conditions resulting in the agency being designated under 
     section 533(a) as a troubled agency, the Secretary may 
     redirect or withhold, from such unit of general local 
     government any amounts allocated for such unit under section 
     106 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.

     SEC. 544. OPTION TO DEMAND CONVEYANCE OF TITLE TO OR 
                   POSSESSION OF PUBLIC HOUSING.

       (a) Authority for Conveyance.--A contract under section 201 
     for block grants under title II (including contracts which 
     amend or supersede contracts previously made (including 
     contracts for contributions)) may provide that upon the 
     occurrence of a substantial default with respect to the 
     covenants or conditions to which the public housing agency is 
     subject (as such substantial default shall be defined in such 
     contract), the public housing agency shall be obligated, at 
     the option of the Secretary, to--
       (1) convey title in any case where, in the determination of 
     the Secretary (which determination shall be final and 
     conclusive), such conveyance of title is necessary to achieve 
     the purposes of this Act; or
       (2) deliver to the Secretary possession of the development, 
     as then constituted, to which such contract relates.

[[Page H2416]]

       (b) Obligation to Reconvey.--Any block grant contract under 
     title II containing the provisions authorized in subsection 
     (a) shall also provide that the Secretary shall be obligated 
     to reconvey or redeliver possession of the development, as 
     constituted at the time of reconveyance or redelivery, to 
     such public housing agency or to its successor (if such 
     public housing agency or a successor exists) upon such terms 
     as shall be prescribed in such contract, and as soon as 
     practicable after--
       (1) the Secretary is satisfied that all defaults with 
     respect to the development have been cured, and that the 
     development will, in order to fulfill the purposes of this 
     Act, thereafter be operated in accordance with the terms of 
     such contract; or
       (2) the termination of the obligation to make annual block 
     grants to the agency, unless there are any obligations or 
     covenants of the agency to the Secretary which are then in 
     default.

     Any prior conveyances and reconveyances or deliveries and 
     redeliveries of possession shall not exhaust the right to 
     require a conveyance or delivery of possession of the 
     development to the Secretary pursuant to subsection (a) upon 
     the subsequent occurrence of a substantial default.
       (c) Continued Grants for Repayment of Bonds and Notes Under 
     1937 Act.--If--
       (1) a contract for block grants under title II for an 
     agency includes provisions that expressly state that the 
     provisions are included pursuant to this subsection, and
       (2) the portion of the block grant payable for debt service 
     requirements pursuant to the contract has been pledged by the 
     public housing agency as security for the payment of the 
     principal and interest on any of its obligations, then--
       (A) the Secretary shall (notwithstanding any other 
     provisions of this Act), continue to make the block grant 
     payments for the agency so long as any of such obligations 
     remain outstanding; and
       (B) the Secretary may covenant in such a contract that in 
     any event such block grant amounts shall in each year be at 
     least equal to an amount which, together with such income or 
     other funds as are actually available from the development 
     for the purpose at the time such block grant payments are 
     made, will suffice for the payment of all installments of 
     principal and interest on the obligations for which the 
     amounts provided for in the contract shall have been pledged 
     as security that fall due within the next succeeding 12 
     months.

     In no case shall such block grant amounts be in excess of the 
     maximum sum specified in the contract involved, nor for 
     longer than the remainder of the maximum period fixed by the 
     contract.

     SEC. 545. REMOVAL OF INEFFECTIVE PHA'S.

       (a) Conditions of Removal.--The actions specified in 
     subsection (b) may be taken only upon--
       (1) the occurrence of events or conditions that constitute 
     a substantial default by a public housing agency with respect 
     to (A) the covenants or conditions to which the public 
     housing agency is subject, or (B) an agreement entered into 
     under section 543; or
       (2) submission to the Secretary of a petition by the 
     residents of the public housing owned or operated by a public 
     housing agency that is designated as troubled pursuant to 
     section 533(a).
       (b) Removal Actions.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law or of any block grant contract under title II or any 
     grant agreement under title III, in accordance with 
     subsection (a), the Secretary may--
       (1) solicit competitive proposals from other public housing 
     agencies and private housing management agents (which, in the 
     discretion of the Secretary, may be selected by existing 
     public housing residents through administrative procedures 
     established by the Secretary) and, if appropriate, provide 
     for such agents to manage all, or part, of the housing 
     administered by the public housing agency or all or part of 
     the other functions of the agency;
       (2) take possession of the public housing agency, including 
     any developments or functions of the agency under any section 
     of this Act;
       (3) solicit competitive proposals from other public housing 
     agencies and private entities with experience in construction 
     management and, if appropriate, provide for such authorities 
     or firms to oversee implementation of assistance made 
     available for capital improvements for public housing;
       (4) require the agency to make other arrangements 
     acceptable to the Secretary and in the best interests of the 
     public housing residents and assisted families under title 
     III for managing all, or part of, the public housing 
     administered by the agency or the functions of the agency; or
       (5) petition for the appointment of a receiver for the 
     public housing agency to any district court of the United 
     States or to any court of the State in which any portion of 
     the jurisdiction of the public housing agency is located, 
     that is authorized to appoint a receiver for the purposes and 
     having the powers prescribed in this section.
       (c) Emergency Assistance.--The Secretary may make available 
     to receivers and other entities selected or appointed 
     pursuant to this section such assistance as is fair and 
     reasonable to remedy the substantial deterioration of living 
     conditions in individual public housing developments or other 
     related emergencies that endanger the health, safety and 
     welfare of public housing residents or assisted families 
     under title III.
       (d) Powers of Secretary.--If the Secretary takes possession 
     of an agency, or any developments or functions of an agency, 
     pursuant to subsection (b)(2), the Secretary--
       (1) may abrogate contracts that substantially impede 
     correction of the substantial default or improvement of the 
     classification, but only after efforts to renegotiate such 
     contracts have failed and the Secretary has made a written 
     determination regarding such abrogation, which shall be 
     available to the public upon request, identify such 
     contracts, and explain the determination that such contracts 
     may be abrogated;
       (2) may demolish and dispose of assets of the agency in 
     accordance with section 261;
       (3) where determined appropriate by the Secretary, may 
     require the establishment of one or more new public housing 
     agencies;
       (4) may consolidate the agency into other well-managed 
     public housing agencies with the consent of such well-managed 
     authorities;
       (5) shall not be subject to any State or local laws 
     relating to civil service requirements, employee rights, 
     procurement, or financial or administrative controls that, in 
     the determination of the Secretary, substantially impede 
     correction of the substantial default or improvement of the 
     classification, but only if the Secretary has made a written 
     determination regarding such inapplicability, which shall be 
     available to the public upon request, identify such 
     inapplicable laws, and explain the determination that such 
     laws impede such correction; and
       (6) shall have such additional authority as a district 
     court of the United States has the authority to confer under 
     like circumstances upon a receiver to achieve the purposes of 
     the receivership.

     The Secretary may appoint, on a competitive or noncompetitive 
     basis, an individual or entity as an administrative receiver 
     to assume the Secretary's responsibility under this paragraph 
     for the administration of a public housing agency. The 
     Secretary may delegate to the administrative receiver any or 
     all of the powers of the Secretary under this subsection. 
     Regardless of any delegation under this subsection, an 
     administrative receiver may not require the establishment of 
     one or more new public housing agencies pursuant to paragraph 
     (3) unless the Secretary first approves such establishment. 
     For purposes of this subsection, the term ``public housing 
     agency'' includes any developments or functions of a public 
     housing agency under any section of this title.
       (e) Receivership.--
       (1) Required appointment.--In any proceeding under 
     subsection (b)(5), upon a determination that a substantial 
     default has occurred, and without regard to the availability 
     of alternative remedies, the court shall appoint a receiver 
     to conduct the affairs of the public housing agency in a 
     manner consistent with this Act and in accordance with such 
     further terms and conditions as the court may provide. The 
     receiver appointed may be another public housing agency, a 
     private management corporation, the Secretary, or any other 
     appropriate entity. The court shall have power to grant 
     appropriate temporary or preliminary relief pending final 
     disposition of the petition by the Secretary.
       (2) Powers of receiver.--If a receiver is appointed for a 
     public housing agency pursuant to subsection (b)(5), in 
     addition to the powers accorded by the court appointing the 
     receiver, the receiver--
       (A) may abrogate contracts that substantially impede 
     correction of the substantial default or improvement of the 
     classification, but only after bona fide efforts to 
     renegotiate such contracts have failed and the receiver has 
     made a written determination regarding such abrogation, which 
     shall be available to the public upon request, identify such 
     contracts, and explain the determination that such contracts 
     may be abrogated;
       (B) may demolish and dispose of assets of the agency in 
     accordance with section 261;
       (C) where determined appropriate by the Secretary, may 
     require the establishment of one or more new public housing 
     agencies, to the extent permitted by State and local law; and
       (D) except as provided in subparagraph (C), shall not be 
     subject to any State or local laws relating to civil service 
     requirements, employee rights, procurement, or financial or 
     administrative controls that, in the determination of the 
     receiver, substantially impede correction of the substantial 
     default or improvement of the classification, but only if the 
     receiver has made a written determination regarding such 
     inapplicability, which shall be available to the public upon 
     request, identify such inapplicable laws, and explain the 
     determination that such laws impede such correction.

     For purposes of this paragraph, the term ``public housing 
     agency'' includes any developments or functions of a public 
     housing agency under any section of this title.
       (3) Termination.--The appointment of a receiver pursuant to 
     this subsection may be terminated, upon the petition of any 
     party, when the court determines that all defaults have been 
     cured or the public housing agency will be able to make the 
     same amount of progress in correcting the management of the 
     housing as the receiver.
       (f) Liability.--If the Secretary takes possession of an 
     agency pursuant to subsection (b)(2) or a receiver is 
     appointed pursuant to subsection (b)(5) for a public housing 
     agency, the Secretary or the receiver shall be

[[Page H2417]]

     deemed to be acting in the capacity of the public housing 
     agency (and not in the official capacity as Secretary or 
     other official) and any liability incurred shall be a 
     liability of the public housing agency.
       (g) Effectiveness.--The provisions of this section shall 
     apply with respect to actions taken before, on, or after the 
     effective date of this Act and shall apply to any receivers 
     appointed for a public housing agency before the effective 
     date of this Act.

     SEC. 546. MANDATORY TAKEOVER OF CHRONICALLY TROUBLED PHA'S.

       (a) Removal of Agency.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of this Act, not later than the expiration of the 180-day 
     period beginning on the effective date of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall take one of the following actions with 
     respect to each chronically troubled public housing agency:
       (1) Contracting for management.--Solicit competitive 
     proposals for the management of the agency pursuant to 
     section 545(b)(1) and replace the management of the agency 
     pursuant to selection of such a proposal.
       (2) Takeover.--Take possession of the agency pursuant to 
     section 545(b)(2) of such Act.
       (3) Petition for receiver.--Petition for the appointment of 
     a receiver for the agency pursuant to section 545(b)(5).
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``chronically troubled public housing agency'' means a public 
     housing agency that, as of the effective date of this Act, is 
     designated under section 6(j)(2) of the United States Housing 
     Act of 1937 (as in effect immediately before the effective 
     date of the repeal under section 601(b) of this Act) as a 
     troubled public housing agency and has been so designated 
     continuously for the 3-year period ending upon the effective 
     date of this Act; except that such term does not include any 
     agency that owns or operates less than 1250 public housing 
     dwelling units and that the Secretary determines can, with a 
     reasonable amount of effort, make such improvements or 
     remedies as may be necessary to remove its designation as 
     troubled within 12 months.

     SEC. 547. TREATMENT OF TROUBLED PHA'S.

       (a) Effect of Troubled Status on CHAS.--The comprehensive 
     housing affordability strategy (or any consolidated plan 
     incorporating such strategy) for the State or unit of general 
     local government in which any troubled public housing agency 
     is located shall not be considered to comply with the 
     requirements under section 105 of the Cranston-Gonzalez 
     National Affordable Housing Act unless such plan includes a 
     description of the manner in which the State or unit will 
     assist such troubled agency in improving its operations to 
     remove such designation.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``troubled public housing agency'' means a public housing 
     agency that--
       (1) upon the effective date of this Act, is designated 
     under section 6(j)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937 (as in effect immediately before the effective date of 
     the repeal under section 601(b) of this Act) as a troubled 
     public housing agency; and
       (2) is not a chronically troubled public housing agency, as 
     such term is defined in section 546(b) of this Act.

     SEC. 548. MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS.

       Each public housing agency shall keep such records as may 
     be reasonably necessary to disclose the amount and the 
     disposition by the agency of the proceeds of assistance 
     received pursuant to this Act and to ensure compliance with 
     the requirements of this Act.

     SEC. 549. ANNUAL REPORTS REGARDING TROUBLED PHA'S.

       The Secretary shall submit a report to the Congress 
     annually, as a part of the report of the Secretary under 
     section 8 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
     Act, that--
       (1) identifies the public housing agencies that are 
     designated under section 533 as troubled or at-risk of 
     becoming troubled and the reasons for such designation; and
       (2) describes any actions that have been taken in 
     accordance with sections 542, 543, 544, and 545.

     SEC. 550. APPLICABILITY TO RESIDENT MANAGEMENT CORPORATIONS.

       The Secretary shall apply the provisions of this subtitle 
     to resident management corporations in the same manner as 
     applied to public housing agencies.

     SEC. 551. ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR HOUSING AUTHORITY OF NEW 
                   ORLEANS.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary and the Housing Authority 
     of New Orleans (in this section referred to as the ``Housing 
     Authority'') shall, pursuant to the cooperative endeavor 
     agreement in effect between the Secretary and the Housing 
     Authority, establish an advisory council for the Housing 
     Authority of New Orleans (in this section referred to as the 
     ``advisory council'') that complies with the requirements of 
     this section.
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) In general.--The advisory council shall be appointed by 
     the Secretary, not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and shall be composed of the following 
     members:
       (A) The Inspector General of the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development (or the Inspector General's designee).
       (B) Not more than 7 other members, who shall be selected 
     for appointment based on their experience in successfully 
     reforming troubled public housing agencies or in providing 
     affordable housing in coordination with State and local 
     governments, the private sector, affordable housing 
     residents, or local nonprofit organizations.
       (2) Prohibition on additional pay.--Members of the advisory 
     council shall serve without compensation, but shall be 
     reimbursed for travel, subsistence, and other necessary 
     expenses incurred in the performance of their duties as 
     members of the Board using amounts from the Headquarters 
     Reserve fund pursuant to section 111(b)(4).
       (c) Functions.--The advisory council shall--
       (1) establish standards and guidelines for assessing the 
     performance of the Housing Authority in carrying out 
     operational, asset management, and financial functions for 
     purposes of the reports and finding under subsections (d) and 
     (e), respectively;
       (2) provide advice, expertise, and recommendations to the 
     Housing Authority regarding the management, operation, 
     repair, redevelopment, revitalization, demolition, and 
     disposition of public housing developments of the Housing 
     Authority;
       (3) report to the Congress under subsection (d) regarding 
     any progress of the Housing Authority in improving the 
     performance of its functions; and
       (4) make a final finding to the Congress under subsection 
     (e) regarding the future of the Housing Authority.
       (d) Quarterly Reports.--The advisory council shall report 
     to the Congress and the Secretary not less than every 3 
     months regarding the performance of the Housing Authority and 
     any progress of the authority in improving its performance 
     and carrying out its functions.
       (e) Final Finding.--Upon the expiration of the 18-month 
     period that begins upon the appointment under subsection 
     (b)(1) of all members of the advisory council, the council 
     shall make and submit to the Congress and the Secretary a 
     finding of whether the Housing Authority has substantially 
     improved its performance, the performance of its functions, 
     and the overall condition of the Authority such that the 
     Authority should be allowed to continue to operate as the 
     manager of the public housing of the Authority. In making the 
     finding under this subsection, the advisory council shall 
     consider whether the Housing Authority has made sufficient 
     progress in the demolition and revitalization of the Desire 
     Homes development, the revitalization of the St. Thomas Homes 
     development, the appropriate allocation of operating subsidy 
     amounts, and the appropriate expending of modernization 
     amounts.
       (f) Receivership.--If the advisory council finds under 
     subsection (e) that the Housing Authority has not 
     substantially improved its performance such that the 
     Authority should be allowed to continue to operate as the 
     manager of the public housing of the Authority, the Secretary 
     shall (notwithstanding section 545(a)) petition under section 
     545(b) for the appointment of a receiver for the Housing 
     Authority, which receivership shall be subject to the 
     provisions of section 545.
       (g) Exemption.--The provisions of section 546 shall not 
     apply to the Housing Authority.


                 amendment no. 25 offered by mr. vento

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

       Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. Vento: Page 244, strike 
     line 1 and all that follows through line 8 on page 254, and 
     insert the following:

        Subtitle C--Public Housing Management Assessment Program

  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I understand that we have an 
understanding or negotiation that we would be able to seek an outside 
parameter of time, 20 minutes, to hear this amendment, 10 minutes to be 
controlled by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. VENTO] and 10 minutes 
to be controlled by myself.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 20 minutes 
allocated to this be equally divided between the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. LAZIO] and myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is the Chair's understanding that this includes all 
amendments thereto.
  Mr. VENTO. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. VENTO] is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment in this title V provides for a study of 
the evaluation of the HUD evaluation system and performance of public 
housing

[[Page H2418]]

agencies; provides a half million dollar study for that purpose, but 
ironically then, and I think in a contradicting manner, moves ahead and 
establishes an accreditation board, another Federal board of 12 
appointed individuals to that particular board.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a contradiction. This is basically either one 
thing or the other. If we are going to do the study, we need to 
evaluate what the consequences, the outcome, of that study is. I would 
agree that a study is appropriate in this instance because there have 
been many questions that have arisen with regards to HUD and the 
performance evaluations that it has done of public housing agencies. In 
fact, it is a rather new effort on their part that has existed for the 
last 6 or 7 years to make that effort.
  As we repeatedly heard with regard to 3,400 agencies, there are some 
75 that are troubled, that house a considerable number of individuals 
in the 4\1/2\ million housing units. But to set up a study and then to 
automatically set up the board really predetermines what the outcome of 
the study is. The study may in fact find other alternatives that are 
preferable, for instance, in terms of reinforcing the existing 
authority within HUD, but beyond that it simply opens up the 
possibility of having two competing entities; that is to say HUD 
itself, which has responsibility, and I might say the lines are not 
clearly defined with regards to this board that is established, the 
accreditation board, and HUD itself and the fighting between one 
another as to what the requirements, who has what responsibilities.
  It is in fact the report language that we have in the bill that the 
majority's report language on page 115 goes on to even point out this 
particular abnormality. It says if such study concludes, and I quote, 
``If such study concludes that an accreditation system would be unwise 
for the public housing program, then Congress will be in a position to 
either change the focus of the accreditation board, this new Federal 
agency, in accordance with the study's findings or to simply eliminate 
the board.''
  So here we have in one case a study that is suggesting that if the 
study suggests something else that we are going to eliminate the board. 
Well, I got news for my colleagues. Once this board gets appointed and 
we have 12 appointed people by the Speaker, by the President, by the 
ranking members in the House and Senate, they are going to be a board 
in search of a mission. Once we set up this type of federal 
bureaucracy, we are not going to dismiss it. They are going to be out 
there looking for something to do.
  So I mean I do not understand the purpose of doing this. As my 
colleagues know, Congress is going to be back in session in 1998. My 
colleague will still be, I guess, I assume, the chairman of the 
subcommittee when this study comes back. We are going to spend a half 
million dollars on it, and I think that, as my colleagues know, in 
terms of trying to be objective about this we ought to at least try and 
get the results of the study before we presuppose what the results are. 
If that is the case, then why do they have the study in here? And I 
would suggest that there are many contradictions in competition that 
come up; in fact this has been pointed out repeatedly.
  This board will have the power to mail, will have the power to hire 
executives, to hire staff. As my colleagues know, if they love rules 
and regulations, they are going to love this new bureaucracy that is 
being set up here. As my colleagues know, if they do not agree with the 
job HUD is doing, I think then maybe we need to take issue with that 
with the new Secretary or the former Secretary, as we have. But to set 
up another board, a redundant board, I think is the height of cynicism.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish every public housing authority throughout the 
Nation was a high performing, competent housing authority that 
performed to levels of excellence, and if that were the case, as the 
saying goes, if men were angels, we would not need such a thing as an 
accreditation board. But in fact there are some housing authorities 
throughout the country that are not doing a very good job. Some have 
been dismal failures and some need more help, some need more 
encouragement.
  In the academic world accreditation is used in order to ensure 
minimum levels of excellence in terms of colleges and universities, and 
it is a stamp of approval for people when they look at colleges and 
universities or law schools or graduate schools. It gives people a 
comfort level that they know that these institutions are performing at 
these minimal levels. And they are staffed and developed by a system of 
peers. The same is true with hospitals throughout the Nation.
  But with housing that monitoring takes place in-house in HUD. HUD 
itself monitors the housing authorities, and they have been doing an 
exceptionally mediocre, some would say a quite poor, job of that 
evaluation. In fact, according to the General Accounting Office in an 
independent study, one-half of HUD's confirmatory reviews of their in-
house assessment program showed that their scores were shown to be 
inaccurate. Fifty-eight percent of the time that the scores were shown 
to be inaccurate, HUD lowered the scores by an average of 14 points or 
a very substantial shift on a score of 1 to 100.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the evaluation procedure that 
currently exists is faulty; it is inherently flawed, it is unreliable 
and lacks credibility, and that is one of the reasons why housing 
authorities that have been performing at very low standards are 
permitted to continue to operate where we continue to be able to--not 
just able, but we are almost forced or encouraged to throw good money 
after bad to keep feeding housing authorities when they are performing 
at very low management levels.
  The National Commission on Severely Distressed Housing advocated an 
accreditation system to better evaluate the effectiveness of public 
housing management, and it felt that industry peers with experience 
running housing authorities similar to those that they are assessing 
are in a better position to develop performance standards, reevaluate 
an organization against its own needs and requirements and 
differentiate among conditions or issues of concern that may exist in a 
development, but not in others, and also to offer technical assistance 
in specifically each authority and help it to learn how to meet 
accreditation standards and management. We need an independent 
accreditation board.
  We are also saying by authorizing a study within the course of this 
section of the bill that we should have a study and have them report 
back to us so that we can fully flesh out what this independent 
accreditation board should have in terms of its overall and underlying 
mission, but we do make a statement in this bill that we need 
independence, that we need an accreditation board that ought to be 
staffed by peers and people with industry experience, and it ought to 
be used to help prompt housing authorities to be all that they can be 
to perform to levels of excellence and for those who do not, to report 
back so that we can take appropriate action to defund the housing 
authorities that are doing a dismal job.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] the ranking Member.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me 
thank my good friend, Mr. Vento, for once again taking on an issue 
that, while it is perhaps off the beaten path in terms of normal debate 
that we hear around the Congress of the United States, is nonetheless 
central to I think the proper administration of housing programs in 
this country.
  People are so fond of beating up on HUD and beating up on badly-run 
public housing agencies, badly run public housing authorities and 
projects, they will simply jump at any possible solution to the 
problem, no matter how well that idea is going to work. We have heard a 
lot of rhetoric about the fact that we should be open to new ideas. I 
say maybe the other side ought to be open to a bad idea, and perhaps 
when they see a bad idea they ought to be willing to shut it down. This 
qualifies as a bad idea.
  We all agree that we need to tear down bad public housing and take 
over

[[Page H2419]]

troubled housing authorities, but we can and we have been doing that 
without creating a costly, independent and duplicative accreditation 
board.
  I support the Vento amendment that maintains H.R. 2's industry study 
of current accreditation systems and makes recommendations to the 
Congress on improving and monitoring the evaluation of public housing 
authorities. Upon completion of the study, my colleagues have our 
commitment to review the study in an expedited manner and move to 
legislation, if needed, that would implement the study's thoughtful 
suggestions.
  We need to support Mr. Vento's amendment that strikes the 
implementation of an accreditation board despite what the 6-month study 
might recommend. The committee heard testimony from all of the national 
representatives of public housing directors, such as the Council of 
Large Public Housing Authorities, the Public Housing Directors 
Association, the National Association of Redevelopment and Housing 
Directors that opposed instituting H.R. 2's accreditation board.
  Secretary Cuomo and HUD's Inspector General also offered testimony 
against the independent evaluation board included in the board. 
Secretary Cuomo recognized that an outside accreditation board would 
replace the current responsibilities of HUD in evaluating PHA's, yet 
the PHA's would remain fiscally accountable to HUD. With HUD's 
oversight role so greatly diminished by establishing an accreditation 
board, how could the Department certify that PHAs were responsible?
  As we move toward a balanced budget, why are we mandating and paying 
for an accreditation study and then refusing to see what the study says 
before we move to policy development?
  I just believe, when all is said and done, this is the worst kind of 
legislating. It is saying, listen, we have an idea, we are such true 
believers in our idea that we are going to create a study, and 
regardless of what the study ends up suggesting or saying, we are going 
to go forward with the idea nonetheless.
  If we are going to do this, why not just go forward with the 
accreditation board and at least save the taxpayers a study.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would just say that effectively there have been no answers to the 
questions that we have raised. The gentleman's own report language 
suggests that if the study turns out differently, then we can come back 
and repeal the board.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a $500,000 study, I say to my colleagues. It is 
going to set up appointments by the Speaker, by the minority leader, by 
the President; 12 Members are going to be out there looking for a 
mission. We know how these sorts of examples function.
  I would say that my distinguished colleague from New York, Mr. Lazio, 
the subcommittee chairman, pointed out that the GAO gave an evaluation 
of HUD. How does this deal with changing HUD? HUD still has the 
responsibility; and I might say in reference to this that HUD has, and 
in this bill, in fact, there is even more authority being given to 
local governments and to the public housing authorities. The 
presumption is that they have the ability to in fact function in that 
regard.
  I would suggest that this is not accreditation. We have building 
standards and many requirements that are local. This is a balancing act 
that we do when we are dealing with housing. It is not as though that 
they have absolute autonomy in terms of what they are doing, as we 
might find in hospitals or in education institutions where in fact the 
accreditation issue is even being devalued. Some of the best schools in 
this country, incidentally, do not go through accreditation. There are 
questions about the hospital process even today as we sit here, yet we 
are going ahead and having a study.
  I think that in fact that the study is quite appropriate and I 
support it, but why not wait until we get it back to find out what the 
best way to implement this is? Do we need another board within HUD, 
without HUD? Do we need another level of bureaucracy? Do we need HUD in 
essence competing with this accreditation board? That is what this 
invites.
  The lines of authority and the way that this is written is not clear. 
I do not doubt the gentleman's good intentions in terms of what he is 
trying to do, but I think it needs a further evaluation. That is why I 
think that Secretary Cuomo has spoken out strongly against this; why 
Secretary Cisneros was very concerned about this in the previous 
example of this legislation. While the Inspector General of HUD, I 
misspoke when I said the GAO, but the Inspector General of HUD has 
suggested that it would not work, the GAO has pointed out that the 
accreditation model also had questions about it, and most of the public 
housing agencies, the housing authorities directors association, are 
very concerned and have spoken out against this.
  So I do not understand where the support for this comes, other than 
the fact that if we get a study back in a year that is commissioned, 
why can we not take up the study at that time and then allocate the 
responsibilities appropriately in terms of how we evaluate housing 
agencies? It is not all bad. They did pick St. Paul, MN, as the No. 1 
public housing agency, I might say to my friend, so there are I think 
some good aspects to it, but why are we setting this up and having the 
motion that we will in essence lose control of it? We will have little 
influence in that particular case. Adopt the Vento amendment.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Let me begin by saying that I know that the gentleman from Minnesota 
offers the amendment not just in good faith, but with a good deal of 
passion, and I appreciate his concern for housing. He has been a very 
credible and productive member of the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services, and I appreciate him.
  However, let me say this about the gentleman's amendment. We want to 
make a statement here that we are going to hit the ground running. We 
are not going to wait for further activity; we are not going to condemn 
another generation to live in substandard conditions. We are going to 
acknowledge the fact that the HUD evaluations of housing authorities 
have been chronically flawed and faulty. That is not speculation, that 
is fact. That is the conclusion of the General Accounting Office.
  What we are saying in the bill is that we need an independent entity 
to ensure and demand that the housing authorities are performing to 
levels of excellence. I can understand why HUD might want to keep 
control of this, and I can understand why some housing authorities 
might not want to have an independent evaluation, but let me say that 
is exactly what they need. It is unfair to the taxpayers and unfair to 
the residents when housing authorities, performing under abysmal 
standards, are evaluated by HUD and given passing grades, and that is 
exactly what has been criticized by both the General Accounting Office 
and by the inspector general when they found fault with the internal 
accounting system of the evaluation system within HUD.
  In fact, there are plenty of housing authorities, plenty of housing 
authorities, according to the testimony that the committee heard, that 
while they have received pretty decent scores, in fact they had poor 
maintenance, windows broken, doors broken, graffiti, criminal activity, 
poor management, money wasted, and because of the faulty evaluation, 
and in my opinion, this member's opinion, because of a lack of 
independence in terms of the evaluation, that was allowed to continue. 
The net effect of that is that another generation is condemned to live 
in poor conditions.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I cannot differ with the gentleman in terms 
of some of the deplorable problems that have occurred, but is it not 
the function of the Inspector General of HUD that has done some of the 
criticism or the GAO or the oversight work of our committee that can, 
in fact, hold them accountable? Is this the only means available?
  If this study goes through the process and indicates that it is 
preferable, I will join the gentleman in supporting it. But I think the 
essence is, why do we not look at what the alternatives

[[Page H2420]]

are? Of course we know that HUD itself has renewed its efforts in these 
areas.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is 
absolutely the responsibility of the committee in terms of oversight. 
It is absolutely the responsibility of the inspector general. It is 
absolutely the responsibility of the General Accounting Office, to the 
extent that they are directed to report back to Congress, to evaluate 
the information that is provided.
  The idea here is to ensure that we have credible, independent 
information provided so that we can make reasonable judgments, and that 
is why this bill stands for the independent accreditation system 
outside of HUD that will report to us and allow us to make decent 
decisions about what we should do when we have chronic failure.
  Of course, H.R. 2 speaks to that. We fired the ones that are doing 
the poor job, and what we should do with those housing authorities that 
are doing a good job, and again H.R. 2 speaks to this, we should 
provide more flexibility. But we should be getting additional 
information upon which we can make judgments.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would ask of the 
gentleman from New York, is it not true that in the legislation that 
the gentleman wrote, that he included new regulations regarding FEMAC 
that actually deal with the building inspection program that the 
gentleman just cited in order to improve how those inspections are 
being done?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, since we 
have asked for a study to be implemented, we have interim regulations 
in place so that there is not a void until the accreditation board is 
fully operational, in which case that would substitute.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield, I appreciate that, but I would point out to the 
gentleman that he has designed and pointed out some problems that have 
existed; he has taken steps to try to deal with those problems, and 
then he has said maybe the entire system needs to have a new look, and 
he has created a $500,000 study to look at that new look. The trouble 
is that the gentleman implements the results of the study before the 
study has been completed.
  So I just pose the question to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Lazio], if you are going to do that, why do the study? Why not just 
save the taxpayers $500,000 and go forward?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, I 
think it was Members of the minority who asked for the study, as a 
matter of fact. I would say to the gentleman it was the Members of the 
minority that asked for the study. We established the plan. Because we 
have a study and we are trying to be flexible and respond to the 
minority by having the study, we can obviously not implement the 
accreditation board immediately, so we have interim rules and 
regulations so that we do not have an absolute void in terms of 
evaluation, and that all seems entirely responsible and rational, based 
on some of the concerns that have been expressed by Members of the 
minority.
  We are happy to have the study in there to ensure that we have all 
the relevant input that we might need in order to have the strongest 
possible accreditation board, which would have independence and still 
have credibility.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 133, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] 
will be postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title V?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following Members be permitted to offer their amendments to title V 
even after the reading has progressed beyond that title, and that is 
subject to discussions I have had with both of these Members, and I 
have made a personal commitment that I will support this unanimous-
consent request. That would be the amendment by the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Towns] and the amendment by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Davis].
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1815

  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments to title V, the 
Clerk will designate title VI.
  The text of title VI is as follows:
                TITLE VI--REPEALS AND RELATED AMENDMENTS
      Subtitle A--Repeals, Effective Date, and Savings Provisions

     SEC. 601. EFFECTIVE DATE AND REPEAL OF UNITED STATES HOUSING 
                   ACT OF 1937.

       (a) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--This Act and the amendments made by this 
     Act shall take effect upon the expiration of the 6-month 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     except as otherwise provided in this section.
       (2) Exception.--If the Secretary determines that action 
     under this paragraph is necessary for program administration 
     or to avoid hardship, the Secretary may, by notice in 
     accordance with subsection (d), delay the effective date of 
     any provision of this Act until a date not later than October 
     1, 1998.
       (3) Specific effective dates.--Any provision of this Act 
     that specifically provides for the effective date of such 
     provision shall take effect in accordance with the terms of 
     the provision.
       (b) Repeal of United States Housing Act of 1937.--Effective 
     upon the effective date under subsection (a)(1), the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.) is 
     repealed, subject to the conditions under subsection (c). 
     Subsection (a)(2) shall not apply to this subsection.
       (c) Savings Provisions.--
       (1) Obligations under 1937 act.--Any obligation of the 
     Secretary made under authority of the United States Housing 
     Act of 1937 shall continue to be governed by the provisions 
     of such Act, except that--
       (A) notwithstanding the repeal of such Act, the Secretary 
     may make a new obligation under such Act upon finding that 
     such obligation is required--
       (i) to protect the financial interests of the United States 
     or the Department of Housing and Urban Development; or
       (ii) for the amendment, extension, or renewal of existing 
     obligations; and
       (B) notwithstanding the repeal of such Act, the Secretary 
     may, in accordance with subsection (d), issue regulations and 
     other guidance and directives as if such Act were in effect 
     if the Secretary finds that such action is necessary to 
     facilitate the administration of obligations under such Act.
       (2) Transition of funding.--Amounts appropriated under the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937 shall, upon repeal of such 
     Act, remain available for obligation under such Act in 
     accordance with the terms under which amounts were made 
     available.
       (3) Cross references.--The provisions of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 shall remain in effect for purposes of 
     the validity of any reference to a provision of such Act in 
     any statute (other than such Act) until such reference is 
     modified by law or repealed.
       (d) Publication and Effective Date of Notices of Delay.--
       (1) Submission to congress.--The Secretary shall submit to 
     the Committee on Banking and Financial Services of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs of the Senate a copy of any proposed notice 
     under subsection (a)(2) or any proposed regulation, guidance, 
     or directive under subsection (c)(1)(B).
       (2) Opportunity to review.--Such a regulation, notice, 
     guidance, or directive may not be published for comment or 
     for final effectiveness before or during the 15-calendar day 
     period beginning on the day after the date on which such 
     regulation, notice, guidance, or directive was submitted to 
     the Congress.
       (3) Effective date.--No regulation, notice, guideline, or 
     directive may become effective until after the expiration of 
     the 30-calendar day period beginning on the day after the day 
     on which such rule or regulation is published as final.
       (4) Waiver.--The provisions of paragraphs (2) and (3) may 
     be waived upon the written request of the Secretary, if 
     agreed to by the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of 
     both Committees.
       (e) Modifications.--Notwithstanding any provision of this 
     Act or any annual contributions contract or other agreement 
     entered into by the Secretary and a public housing agency 
     pursuant to the provisions of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 (as in effect before the effective date of the repeal 
     under section 601(b) of this Act), the Secretary and the 
     agency may by mutual consent amend, supersede, or modify any 
     such agreement as appropriate to provide for assistance under 
     this Act, except that the Secretary and the agency may not 
     consent to

[[Page H2421]]

     any such amendment, supersession, or modification that 
     substantially alters any outstanding obligations requiring 
     continued maintenance of the low-income character of any 
     public housing development and any such amendment, 
     supersession, or modification shall not be given effect.
       (f) Section 8 Project-Based Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--The provisions of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.) shall remain in 
     effect after the effectiveness of the repeal under subsection 
     (b) with respect to all section 8 project-based assistance, 
     pursuant to existing and future contracts, except as 
     otherwise provided by this section.
       (2) Tenant selection preferences.--An owner of housing 
     assisted with section 8 project-based assistance shall give 
     preference, in the selection of tenants for units of such 
     projects that become available, according to any system of 
     local preferences established pursuant to section 223 by the 
     public housing agency having jurisdiction for the area in 
     which such projects are located.
       (3) 1-year notification.--Paragraphs (9) and (10) of 
     section 8(c) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437f(c)) shall not be applicable to section 8 
     project-based assistance.
       (4) Lease terms.--Leases for dwelling units assisted with 
     section 8 project-based assistance shall comply with the 
     provisions of paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 324 of this 
     Act and shall not be subject to the provisions of 8(d)(1)(B) 
     of the United States Housing Act of 1937.
       (5) Termination of tenancy.--Any termination of tenancy of 
     a resident of a dwelling unit assisted with section 8 
     project-based assistance shall comply with the provisions of 
     section 324(2) and section 325 of this Act and shall not be 
     subject to the provisions of section 8(d)(1)(B) of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937.
       (6) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``section 8 project-based assistance'' means assistance under 
     any of the following programs:
       (A) The new construction or substantial rehabilitation 
     program under section 8(b)(2) of the United States Housing 
     Act of 1937 (as in effect before October 1, 1983).
       (B) The property disposition program under section 8(b) 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).
       (C) The loan management set-aside program under subsections 
     (b) and (v) of section 8 of such Act.
       (D) The project-based certificate program under section 
     8(d)(2) of such Act.
       (E) The moderate rehabilitation program under section 
     8(e)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in 
     effect before October 1, 1991).
       (F) The low-income housing preservation program under Low-
     Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 
     1990 or the provisions of the Emergency Low Income Housing 
     Preservation Act of 1987 (as in effect before November 28, 
     1990).
       (G) 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), following conversion from 
     assistance under section 101 of the Housing and Urban 
     Development Act of 1965 or section 236(f)(2) of the National 
     Housing Act.
       (g) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 602. OTHER REPEALS.

       (a) In General.--The following provisions of law are hereby 
     repealed:
       (1) Assisted housing allocation.--Section 213 of the 
     Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
     1439).
       (2) Public housing rent waivers for police.--Section 519 of 
     the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1437a-1).
       (3) Treatment of certificate and voucher holders.--
     Subsection (c) of section 183 of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1987 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note).
       (4) Excessive rent burden data.--Subsection (b) of section 
     550 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1437f note).
       (5) Moving to opportunity for fair housing.--Section 152 of 
     the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 
     1437f note).
       (6) Report regarding fair housing objectives.--Section 153 
     of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437f note).
       (7) Special projects for elderly or handicapped families.--
     Section 209 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
     1974 (42 U.S.C. 1438).
       (8) Access to pha books.--Section 816 of the Housing Act of 
     1954 (42 U.S.C. 1435).
       (9) Miscellaneous provisions.--Subsections (b)(1) and (d) 
     of section 326 of the Housing and Community Development 
     Amendments of 1981 (Public Law 97-35, 95 Stat. 406; 42 U.S.C. 
     1437f note).
       (10) Payment for development managers.--Section 329A of the 
     Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1981 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437j-1).
       (11) Procurement of insurance by pha's.--In the item 
     relating to ``administrative provisions'' under the heading 
     ``Management and Administration'' in title II of the 
     Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1991, the penultimate undesignated paragraph of such item 
     (Public Law 101-507; 104 Stat. 1369).
       (12) Public housing childhood development.--Section 222 of 
     the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of 1983 (12 U.S.C. 
     1701z-6 note).
       (13) Indian housing childhood development.--Section 518 of 
     the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1701z-6 note).
       (14) Public housing comprehensive transition 
     demonstration.--Section 126 of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1987 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note).
       (15) Public housing one-stop perinatal services 
     demonstration.--Section 521 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National 
     Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 1437t note).
       (16) Public housing mincs demonstration.--Section 522 of 
     the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1437f note).
       (17) Public housing energy efficiency demonstration.--
     Section 523 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 
     Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 1437g note).
       (18) Omaha homeownership demonstration.--Section 132 of the 
     Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (Public Law 
     102-550; 106 Stat. 3712).
       (19) Public and assisted housing youth sports programs.--
     Section 520 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 
     Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 11903a).
       (20) Frost-leland provisions.--Section 415 of the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development--Independent 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1988 (Public Law 100-202; 101 
     Stat. 1329-213); except that, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, beginning on the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the public housing projects described in section 415 of 
     such appropriations Act (as such section existed immediately 
     before the date of enactment of this Act) shall be eligible 
     for demolition--
       (A) under section 14 of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937 (as such section existed upon the enactment of this 
     Act); and
       (B) under section 9 of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937.
       (21) Multifamily financing.--The penultimate sentence of 
     section 302(b)(2) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1717(b)(2)) and the penultimate sentence of section 305(a)(2) 
     of the Emergency Home Finance Act of 1970 (12 U.S.C. 
     1454(a)(2)).
       (22) Conflicts of interest.--Subsection (c) of section 326 
     of the Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1981 
     (42 U.S.C. 1437f note).
       (23) Conversion of public housing.--Section 202 of the 
     Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1996 (42 U.S.C. 1437l note) (enacted as section 101(e) of 
     Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 
     1996 (Public Law 104-134; 110 Stat. 1321-279)).
       (b) Savings Provision.--Except to the extent otherwise 
     provided in this Act--
       (1) the repeals made by subsection (a) shall not affect any 
     legally binding obligations entered into before the effective 
     date of this Act; and
       (2) any funds or activities subject to a provision of law 
     repealed by subsection (a) shall continue to be governed by 
     the provision as in effect immediately before such repeal.
  Subtitle B--Other Provisions Relating to Public Housing and Rental 
                          Assistance Programs

     SEC. 621. ALLOCATION OF ELDERLY HOUSING AMOUNTS.

       Section 202(l) of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 
     1701q(l)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(4) Consideration in allocating assistance.--Assistance 
     under this section shall be allocated in a manner that 
     ensures that the awards of the assistance are made for 
     projects of sufficient size to accommodate facilities for 
     supportive services appropriate to the needs of frail elderly 
     residents.''.

     SEC. 622. PET OWNERSHIP.

       Section 227 of the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of 
     1983 (12 U.S.C. 1701r-1) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 227. PET OWNERSHIP IN FEDERALLY ASSISTED RENTAL 
                   HOUSING.

       ``(a) Right of Ownership.--A resident of a dwelling unit in 
     federally assisted rental housing may own common household 
     pets or have common household pets present in the dwelling 
     unit of such resident, subject to the reasonable requirements 
     of the owner of the federally assisted rental housing and 
     providing that the resident maintains the animals responsibly 
     and in compliance with applicable local and State public 
     health, animal control, and anticruelty laws. Such reasonable 
     requirements may include requiring payment of a nominal fee 
     and pet deposit by residents owning or having pets present, 
     to cover the operating costs to the project relating to the 
     presence of pets and to establish an escrow account for 
     additional such costs not otherwise covered, respectively. 
     Notwithstanding section 225(d) of the Housing Opportunity and 
     Responsibility Act of 1997, a public housing agency may not 
     grant any exemption under such section from payment, in whole 
     or in part, of any fee or deposit required pursuant to the 
     preceding sentence.
       ``(b) Prohibition Against Discrimination.--No owner of 
     federally assisted rental housing may restrict or 
     discriminate against any person in connection with admission 
     to, or continued occupancy of, such housing by

[[Page H2422]]

     reason of the ownership of common household pets by, or the 
     presence of such pets in the dwelling unit of, such person.
       ``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       ``(1) Federally assisted rental housing.--The term 
     `federally assisted rental housing' means any multifamily 
     rental housing project that is--
       ``(A) public housing (as such term is defined in section 
     103 of the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 
     1997);
       ``(B) assisted with project-based assistance pursuant to 
     section 601(f) of the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility 
     Act of 1997 or 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 the Housing Opportunity and 
     Responsibility Act of 1997);
       ``(C) assisted under section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 
     (as amended by section 801 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National 
     Affordable Housing Act);
       ``(D) assisted under section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 
     (as in effect before the enactment of the Cranston-Gonzalez 
     National Affordable Housing Act);
       ``(E) assisted under title V of the Housing Act of 1949; or
       ``(F) insured, assisted, or held by the Secretary or a 
     State or State agency under section 236 of the National 
     Housing Act.
       ``(2) Owner.--The term `owner' means, with respect to 
     federally assisted rental housing, the entity or private 
     person, including a cooperative or public housing agency, 
     that has the legal right to lease or sublease dwelling units 
     in such housing (including a manager of such housing having 
     such right).
       ``(d) Regulations.--This section shall take effect upon the 
     date of the effectiveness of regulations issued by the 
     Secretary to carry out this section. Such regulations shall 
     be issued not later than the expiration of the 1-year period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of the Housing 
     Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 1997 and after notice 
     and opportunity for public comment in accordance with the 
     procedure under section 553 of title 5, United States Code, 
     applicable to substantive rules (notwithstanding subsections 
     (a)(2), (b)(B), and (d)(3) of such section).''.

     SEC. 623. REVIEW OF DRUG ELIMINATION PROGRAM CONTRACTS.

       (a) Requirement.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development shall investigate all security contracts awarded 
     by grantees under the Public and Assisted Housing Drug 
     Elimination Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 11901 et seq.) that are 
     public housing agencies that own or operate more than 4,500 
     public housing dwelling units--
       (1) to determine whether the contractors under such 
     contracts have complied with all laws and regulations 
     regarding prohibition of discrimination in hiring practices;
       (2) to determine whether such contracts were awarded in 
     accordance with the applicable laws and regulations regarding 
     the award of such contracts;
       (3) to determine how many such contracts were awarded under 
     emergency contracting procedures;
       (4) to evaluate the effectiveness of the contracts; and
       (5) to provide a full accounting of all expenses under the 
     contracts.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete the 
     investigation required under subsection (a) and submit a 
     report to the Congress regarding the findings under the 
     investigation. With respect to each such contract, the report 
     shall (1) state whether the contract was made and is 
     operating, or was not made or is not operating, in full 
     compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and (2) for 
     each contract that the Secretary determines is in such 
     compliance issue a personal certification of such compliance 
     by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
       (c) Actions.--For each contract that is described in the 
     report under subsection (b) as not made or not operating in 
     full compliance with applicable laws and regulations, the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall promptly 
     take any actions available under law or regulation that are 
     necessary--
       (1) to bring such contract into compliance; or
       (2) to terminate the contract.
       (d) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 624. AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING DRUG 
                   ELIMINATION ACT OF 1990.

       (a) Short Title, Purposes, and Authority To Make Grants.--
     Chapter 2 of subtitle C of title V of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act 
     of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11901 et seq.) is amended by striking the 
     chapter heading and all that follows through section 5123 and 
     inserting the following:

           ``CHAPTER 2--COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS AGAINST CRIME

     ``SEC. 5121. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This chapter may be cited as the `Community Partnerships 
     Against Crime Act of 1997'.

     ``SEC. 5122. PURPOSES.

       ``The purposes of this chapter are to--
       ``(1) improve the quality of life for the vast majority of 
     law-abiding public housing residents by reducing the levels 
     of fear, violence, and crime in their communities;
       ``(2) broaden the scope of the Public and Assisted Housing 
     Drug Elimination Act of 1990 to apply to all types of crime, 
     and not simply crime that is drug-related; and
       ``(3) reduce crime and disorder in and around public 
     housing through the expansion of community-oriented policing 
     activities and problem solving.

     ``SEC. 5123. AUTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS.

       ``The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may make 
     grants in accordance with the provisions of this chapter for 
     use in eliminating crime in and around public housing and 
     other federally assisted low-income housing projects to (1) 
     public housing agencies, and (2) private, for-profit and 
     nonprofit owners of federally assisted low-income housing.''.
       (b) Eligible Activities.--
       (1) In general.--Section 5124(a) of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act 
     of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11903(a)) is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting 
     ``and around'' after ``used in'';
       (B) in paragraph (3), by inserting before the semicolon the 
     following: ``, including fencing, lighting, locking, and 
     surveillance systems'';
       (C) in paragraph (4), by striking subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting the following new subparagraph:
       ``(A) to investigate crime; and'';
       (D) in paragraph (6)--
       (i) by striking ``in and around public or other federally 
     assisted low-income housing projects''; and
       (ii) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon; and
       (E) by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following 
     new paragraphs:
       ``(7) providing funding to nonprofit public housing 
     resident management corporations and resident councils to 
     develop security and crime prevention programs involving site 
     residents;
       ``(8) the employment or utilization of one or more 
     individuals, including law enforcement officers, made 
     available by contract or other cooperative arrangement with 
     State or local law enforcement agencies, to engage in 
     community- and problem-oriented policing involving 
     interaction with members of the community in proactive crime 
     control and prevention activities;
       ``(9) programs and activities for or involving youth, 
     including training, education, recreation and sports, career 
     planning, and entrepreneurship and employment activities and 
     after school and cultural programs; and
       ``(10) service programs for residents that address the 
     contributing factors of crime, including programs for job 
     training, education, drug and alcohol treatment, and other 
     appropriate social services.''.
       (2) Other pha-owned housing.--Section 5124(b) of the Anti-
     Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11903(b)) is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``drug-related crime in'' and inserting 
     ``crime in and around''; and
       (ii) by striking ``paragraphs (1) through (7)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraphs (1) through (10)''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``drug-related'' and 
     inserting ``criminal''.
       (c) Grant Procedures.--Section 5125 of the Anti-Drug Abuse 
     Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11904) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 5125. GRANT PROCEDURES.

       ``(a) PHA's With 250 or More Units.--
       ``(1) Grants.--In each fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     make a grant under this chapter from any amounts available 
     under section 5131(b)(1) for the fiscal year to each of the 
     following public housing agencies:
       ``(A) New applicants.--Each public housing agency that owns 
     or operates 250 or more public housing dwelling units and 
     has--
       ``(i) submitted an application to the Secretary for a grant 
     for such fiscal year, which includes a 5-year crime 
     deterrence and reduction plan under paragraph (2); and
       ``(ii) had such application and plan approved by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(B) Renewals.--Each public housing agency that owns or 
     operates 250 or more public housing dwelling units and for 
     which--
       ``(i) a grant was made under this chapter for the preceding 
     Federal fiscal year;
       ``(ii) the term of the 5-year crime deterrence and 
     reduction plan applicable to such grant includes the fiscal 
     year for which the grant under this subsection is to be made; 
     and
       ``(iii) the Secretary has determined, pursuant to a 
     performance review under paragraph (4), that during the 
     preceding fiscal year the agency has substantially fulfilled 
     the requirements under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph 
     (4).

     Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), the Secretary may 
     make a grant under this chapter to a public housing agency 
     that owns or operates 250 or more public housing dwelling 
     units only if the agency includes in the application for the 
     grant information that demonstrates, to the satisfaction of 
     the Secretary, that the agency has a need for the grant 
     amounts based on generally recognized crime statistics 
     showing that (I) the crime rate for the public housing 
     developments of the agency (or the immediate neighborhoods in 
     which such developments are located) is higher than the crime 
     rate for the jurisdiction in which the agency operates, (II) 
     the crime rate for the developments (or such neighborhoods) 
     is increasing over a period of sufficient duration to 
     indicate a general trend, or (III) the operation of the 
     program under this chapter substantially contributes to the 
     reduction of crime.
       ``(2) 5-year crime deterrence and reduction plan.--Each 
     application for a grant

[[Page H2423]]

     under this subsection shall contain a 5-year crime deterrence 
     and reduction plan. The plan shall be developed with the 
     participation of residents and appropriate law enforcement 
     officials. The plan shall describe, for the public housing 
     agency submitting the plan--
       ``(A) the nature of the crime problem in public housing 
     owned or operated by the public housing agency;
       ``(B) the building or buildings of the public housing 
     agency affected by the crime problem;
       ``(C) the impact of the crime problem on residents of such 
     building or buildings; and
       ``(D) the actions to be taken during the term of the plan 
     to reduce and deter such crime, which shall include actions 
     involving residents, law enforcement, and service providers.

     The term of a plan shall be the period consisting of 5 
     consecutive fiscal years, which begins with the first fiscal 
     year for which funding under this chapter is provided to 
     carry out the plan.
       ``(3) Amount.--In any fiscal year, the amount of the grant 
     for a public housing agency receiving a grant pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) shall be the amount that bears the same ratio 
     to the total amount made available under section 5131(b)(1) 
     as the total number of public dwelling units owned or 
     operated by such agency bears to the total number of dwelling 
     units owned or operated by all public housing agencies that 
     own or operate 250 or more public housing dwelling units that 
     are approved for such fiscal year.
       ``(4) Performance review.--For each fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall conduct a performance review of the 
     activities carried out by each public housing agency 
     receiving a grant pursuant to this subsection to determine 
     whether the agency--
       ``(A) has carried out such activities in a timely manner 
     and in accordance with its 5-year crime deterrence and 
     reduction plan; and
       ``(B) has a continuing capacity to carry out such plan in a 
     timely manner.
       ``(5) Submission of applications.--The Secretary shall 
     establish such deadlines and requirements for submission of 
     applications under this subsection.
       ``(6) Review and determination.--The Secretary shall review 
     each application submitted under this subsection upon 
     submission and shall approve the application unless the 
     application and the 5-year crime deterrence and reduction 
     plan are inconsistent with the purposes of this chapter or 
     any requirements established by the Secretary or the 
     information in the application or plan is not substantially 
     complete. Upon approving or determining not to approve an 
     application and plan submitted under this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall notify the public housing agency submitting 
     the application and plan of such approval or disapproval.
       ``(7) Disapproval of applications.--If the Secretary 
     notifies an agency that the application and plan of the 
     agency is not approved, not later than the expiration of the 
     15-day period beginning upon such notice of disapproval, the 
     Secretary shall also notify the agency, in writing, of the 
     reasons for the disapproval, the actions that the agency 
     could take to comply with the criteria for approval, and the 
     deadlines for such actions.
       ``(8) Failure to approve or disapprove.--If the Secretary 
     fails to notify an agency of approval or disapproval of an 
     application and plan submitted under this subsection before 
     the expiration of the 60-day period beginning upon the 
     submission of the plan or fails to provide notice under 
     paragraph (7) within the 15-day period under such paragraph 
     to an agency whose application has been disapproved, the 
     application and plan shall be considered to have been 
     approved for purposes of this section.
       ``(b) PHA's With Fewer Than 250 Units and Owners of 
     Federally Assisted Low-Income Housing.--
       ``(1) Applications and plans.--To be eligible to receive a 
     grant under this chapter, a public housing agency that owns 
     or operates fewer than 250 public housing dwelling units or 
     an owner of federally assisted low-income housing shall 
     submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such 
     manner, and accompanied by such additional information as the 
     Secretary may require. The application shall include a plan 
     for addressing the problem of crime in and around the housing 
     for which the application is submitted, describing in detail 
     activities to be conducted during the fiscal year for which 
     the grant is requested.
       ``(2) Grants for pha's with fewer than 250 units.--In each 
     fiscal year the Secretary may, to the extent amounts are 
     available under section 5131(b)(2), make grants under this 
     chapter to public housing agencies that own or operate fewer 
     than 250 public housing dwelling units and have submitted 
     applications under paragraph (1) that the Secretary has 
     approved pursuant to the criteria under paragraph (4).
       ``(3) Grants for federally assisted low-income housing.--In 
     each fiscal year the Secretary may, to the extent amounts are 
     available under section 5131(b)(3), make grants under this 
     chapter to owners of federally assisted low-income housing 
     that have submitted applications under paragraph (1) that the 
     Secretary has approved pursuant to the criteria under 
     paragraphs (4) and (5).
       ``(4) Criteria for approval of applications.--The Secretary 
     shall determine whether to approve each application under 
     this subsection on the basis of--
       ``(A) the extent of the crime problem in and around the 
     housing for which the application is made;
       ``(B) the quality of the plan to address the crime problem 
     in the housing for which the application is made;
       ``(C) the capability of the applicant to carry out the 
     plan; and
       ``(D) the extent to which the tenants of the housing, the 
     local government, local community-based nonprofit 
     organizations, local tenant organizations representing 
     residents of neighboring projects that are owned or assisted 
     by the Secretary, and the local community support and 
     participate in the design and implementation of the 
     activities proposed to be funded under the application.

     In each fiscal year, the Secretary may give preference to 
     applications under this subsection for housing made by 
     applicants who received a grant for such housing for the 
     preceding fiscal year under this subsection or under the 
     provisions of this chapter as in effect immediately before 
     the date of the enactment of the Housing Opportunity and 
     Responsibility Act of 1997.
       ``(5) Additional criteria for federally assisted low-income 
     housing.--In addition to the selection criteria under 
     paragraph (4), the Secretary may establish other criteria for 
     evaluating applications submitted by owners of federally 
     assisted low-income housing, except that such additional 
     criteria shall be designed only to reflect--
       ``(A) relevant differences between the financial resources 
     and other characteristics of public housing agencies and 
     owners of federally assisted low-income housing; or
       ``(B) relevant differences between the problem of crime in 
     public housing administered by such authorities and the 
     problem of crime in federally assisted low-income housing.''.
       (d) Definitions.--Section 5126 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act 
     of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11905) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2);
       (2) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``section'' before 
     ``221(d)(4)'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) (as so amended) 
     as paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Public housing agency.--The term `public housing 
     agency' has the meaning given the term in section 103 of the 
     Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 1997.''.
       (e) Implementation.--Section 5127 of the Anti-Drug Abuse 
     Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11906) is amended by striking 
     ``Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act'' and 
     inserting ``Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 
     1997''.
       (f) Reports.--Section 5128 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 
     1988 (42 U.S.C. 11907) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``drug-related crime in'' and inserting 
     ``crime in and around''; and
       (2) by striking ``described in section 5125(a)'' and 
     inserting ``for the grantee submitted under subsection (a) or 
     (b) of section 5125, as applicable''.
       (g) Funding and Program Sunset.--Chapter 2 of subtitle C of 
     title V of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 is amended by 
     striking section 5130 (42 U.S.C. 11909) and inserting the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 5130. FUNDING.

       ``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this chapter 
     $290,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 
     and 2002.
       ``(b) Allocation.--Of any amounts available, or that the 
     Secretary is authorized to use, to carry out this chapter in 
     any fiscal year--
       ``(1) 85 percent shall be available only for assistance 
     pursuant to section 5125(a) to public housing agencies that 
     own or operate 250 or more public housing dwelling units;
       ``(2) 10 percent shall be available only for assistance 
     pursuant to section 5125(b)(2) to public housing agencies 
     that own or operate fewer than 250 public housing dwelling 
     units; and
       ``(3) 5 percent shall be available only for assistance to 
     federally assisted low-income housing pursuant to section 
     5125(b)(3).
       ``(c) Retention of Proceeds of Asset Forfeitures by 
     Inspector General.--Notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, 
     United States Code, or any other provision of law affecting 
     the crediting of collections, the proceeds of forfeiture 
     proceedings and funds transferred to the Office of Inspector 
     General of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
     as a participating agency, from the Department of Justice 
     Assets Forfeiture Fund or the Department of the Treasury 
     Forfeiture Fund, as an equitable share from the forfeiture of 
     property in investigations in which the Office of Inspector 
     General participates, shall be deposited to the credit of the 
     Office of Inspector General for Operation Safe Home 
     activities authorized under the Inspector General Act of 
     1978, as amended, to remain available until expended.''.
       (h) Conforming Amendments.--The table of contents in 
     section 5001 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 
     100-690; 102 Stat. 4295) is amended--
       (1) by striking the item relating to the heading for 
     chapter 2 of subtitle C of title V and inserting the 
     following:

          ``Chapter 2--Community Partnerships Against Crime'';

       (2) by striking the item relating to section 5122 and 
     inserting the following new item:

``Sec. 5122. Purposes.'';


[[Page H2424]]


       (3) by striking the item relating to section 5125 and 
     inserting the following new item:

``Sec. 5125. Grant procedures.'';

     and
       (4) by striking the item relating to section 5130 and 
     inserting the following new item:

``Sec. 5130. Funding.''.

       (i) Treatment of NOFA.--The cap limiting assistance under 
     the Notice of Funding Availability issued by the Department 
     of Housing and Urban Development in the Federal Register of 
     April 8, 1996, shall not apply to a public housing agency 
     within an area designated as a high intensity drug 
     trafficking area under section 1005(c) of the Anti-Drug Abuse 
     Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1504(c)).
       (j) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made 
     by this section shall take effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
  Subtitle C--Limitations Relating to Occupancy in Federally Assisted 
                                Housing

     SEC. 641. SCREENING OF APPLICANTS.

       (a) Ineligibility Because of Eviction.--Any household or 
     member of a household evicted from federally assisted housing 
     (as such term is defined in section 645) shall not be 
     eligible for federally assisted housing--
       (1) in the case of eviction by reason of drug-related 
     criminal activity, for a period of not less than 3 years that 
     begins on the date of such eviction, unless the evicted 
     member of the household successfully completes a 
     rehabilitation program; and
       (2) in the case of an eviction for other serious violations 
     of the terms or conditions of the lease, for a reasonable 
     period of time, as determined by the public housing agency or 
     owner of the federally assisted housing, as applicable.

     The requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) may be waived if 
     the circumstances leading to eviction no longer exist.
       (b) Ineligibility of Illegal Drug Users and Alcohol 
     Users.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a public housing agency or an owner of federally 
     assisted housing, or both, as determined by the Secretary, 
     shall establish standards that prohibit admission to the 
     program or admission to federally assisted housing for any 
     household with a member--
       (A) who the public housing agency or owner determines is 
     engaging in the illegal use of a controlled substance; or
       (B) with respect to whom the public housing agency or owner 
     determines that it has reasonable cause to believe that such 
     household member's illegal use (or pattern of illegal use) of 
     a controlled substance, or abuse (or pattern of abuse) of 
     alcohol, would interfere with the health, safety, or right to 
     peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents.
       (2) Consideration of rehabilitation.--In determining 
     whether, pursuant to paragraph (1)(B), to deny admission to 
     the program or to federally assisted housing to any household 
     based on a pattern of illegal use of a controlled substance 
     or a pattern of abuse of alcohol by a household member, a 
     public housing agency or an owner may consider whether such 
     household member--
       (A) has successfully completed an accredited drug or 
     alcohol rehabilitation program (as applicable) and is no 
     longer engaging in the illegal use of a controlled substance 
     or abuse of alcohol (as applicable);
       (B) has otherwise been rehabilitated successfully and is no 
     longer engaging in the illegal use of a controlled substance 
     or abuse of alcohol (as applicable); or
       (C) is participating in an accredited drug or alcohol 
     rehabilitation program (as applicable) and is no longer 
     engaging in the illegal use of a controlled substance or 
     abuse of alcohol (as applicable).
       (c) Authority To Deny Admission to Criminal Offenders.--
     Except as provided in subsections (a) and (b) and in addition 
     to any other authority to screen applicants, in selecting 
     among applicants for admission to the program or to federally 
     assisted housing, if the public housing agency or owner of 
     such housing (as applicable) determines that an applicant or 
     any member of the applicant's household is or was, during a 
     reasonable time preceding the date when the applicant 
     household would otherwise be selected for admission, engaged 
     in any criminal activity (including drug-related criminal 
     activity), the public housing agency or owner may--
       (1) deny such applicant admission to the program or to 
     federally assisted housing;
       (2) consider the applicant (for purposes of any waiting 
     list) as not having applied for the program or such housing; 
     and
       (3) after the expiration of the reasonable period beginning 
     upon such activity, require the applicant, as a condition of 
     admission to the program or to federally assisted housing, to 
     submit to the public housing agency or owner evidence 
     sufficient (as the Secretary shall by regulation provide) to 
     ensure that the individual or individuals in the applicant's 
     household who engaged in criminal activity for which denial 
     was made under paragraph (1) have not engaged in any criminal 
     activity during such reasonable period.
       (d) Authority To Require Access to Criminal Records.--A 
     public housing agency and an owner of federally assisted 
     housing may require, as a condition of providing admission to 
     the program or admission to or occupancy in federally 
     assisted housing, that each adult member of the household 
     provide a signed, written authorization for the public 
     housing agency to obtain the records described in section 
     644(a) regarding such member of the household from the 
     National Crime Information Center, police departments, other 
     law enforcement agencies, and State registration agencies 
     referred to in such section. In the case of an owner of 
     federally assisted housing that is not a public housing 
     agency, the owner shall request the public housing agency 
     having jurisdiction over the area within which the housing is 
     located to obtain the records pursuant to section 644.
       (e) Admission Based on Disability.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, for purposes of determining eligibility for admission to 
     federally assisted housing, a person shall not be considered 
     to have a disability or a handicap solely because of the 
     prior or current illegal use of a controlled substance (as 
     defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act) or 
     solely by reason of the prior or current use of alcohol.
       (2) Continued occupancy.--This subsection may not be 
     construed to prohibit the continued occupancy of any person 
     who is a resident in assisted housing on the effective date 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 642. TERMINATION OF TENANCY AND ASSISTANCE FOR ILLEGAL 
                   DRUG USERS AND ALCOHOL ABUSERS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a public 
     housing agency or an owner of federally assisted housing (as 
     applicable), shall establish standards or lease provisions 
     for continued assistance or occupancy in federally assisted 
     housing that allow the agency or owner (as applicable) to 
     terminate the tenancy or assistance for any household with a 
     member--
       (1) who the public housing agency or owner determines is 
     engaging in the illegal use of a controlled substance; or
       (2) whose illegal use of a controlled substance, or whose 
     abuse of alcohol, is determined by the public housing agency 
     or owner to interfere with the health, safety, or right to 
     peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents.

     SEC. 643. LEASE REQUIREMENTS.

       In addition to any other applicable lease requirements, 
     each lease for a dwelling unit in federally assisted housing 
     shall provide that--
       (1) the owner may not terminate the tenancy except for 
     violation of the terms or conditions of the lease, violation 
     of applicable Federal, State, or local law, or for other good 
     cause; and
       (2) grounds for termination of tenancy shall include any 
     criminal or other activity, engaged in by the tenant, any 
     member of the tenant's household, any guest, or any other 
     person under the control of the household, that--
       (A) threatens the health or safety of, or right to peaceful 
     enjoyment of the premises by, other tenant or employees of 
     the owner or other manager of the housing;
       (B) threatens the health or safety of, or right to peaceful 
     enjoyment of their premises by, persons residing in the 
     immediate vicinity of the premises; or
       (C) with respect only to activity engaged in by the tenant 
     or any member of the tenant's household, is criminal activity 
     on or off the premises.

     SEC. 644. AVAILABILITY OF CRIMINAL RECORDS FOR TENANT 
                   SCREENING AND EVICTION.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Criminal conviction information.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law other than paragraphs (3) and (4), 
     upon the request of a public housing agency, the National 
     Crime Information Center, a police department, and any other 
     law enforcement agency shall provide to the public housing 
     agency information regarding the criminal conviction records 
     of an adult applicant for, or tenants of, federally assisted 
     housing for purposes of applicant screening, lease 
     enforcement, and eviction, but only if the public housing 
     agency requests such information and presents to such Center, 
     department, or agency a written authorization, signed by such 
     applicant, for the release of such information to the public 
     housing agency or other owner of the federally assisted 
     housing.
       (2) Information regarding crimes against children.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law other than 
     paragraphs (3) and (4), upon the request of a public housing 
     agency, a State law enforcement agency designated as a 
     registration agency under a State registration program under 
     subtitle A of title XVII of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14071), and any local law 
     enforcement agency authorized by the State agency shall 
     provide to a public housing agency the information collected 
     under or such State registration program, regarding an adult 
     applicant for, or tenant of, federally assisted housing for 
     purposes of applicant screening, lease enforcement, and 
     eviction, but only if the public housing agency requests such 
     information and presents to such State registration agency or 
     other local law enforcement agency a written authorization, 
     signed by such applicant, for the release of such information 
     to the public housing agency or other owner of the federally 
     assisted housing.
       (3) Delayed effective date for owners other than pha's.--
     The provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) authorizing 
     obtaining information for owners of federally assisted 
     housing other than public housing agencies shall not take 
     effect before--
       (A) the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on the 
     date of enactment of this Act; and

[[Page H2425]]

       (B) the Secretary and the Attorney General of the United 
     States have determined that access to such information is 
     feasible for such owners and have provided for the terms of 
     release of such information to owners.
       (4) Exception.--The information provided under paragraphs 
     (1), (2), and (3) shall include information regarding any 
     criminal conviction of a juvenile only to the extent that the 
     release of such information is authorized under the law of 
     the applicable State, tribe, or locality.
       (b) Confidentiality.--A public housing agency or owner 
     receiving information under this section may use such 
     information only for the purposes provided in this section 
     and such information may not be disclosed to any person who 
     is not an officer, employee, or authorized representative of 
     the agency or owner and who has a job-related need to have 
     access to the information in connection with admission of 
     applicants, eviction of tenants, or termination of 
     assistance. For judicial eviction proceedings, disclosures 
     may be made to the extent necessary. The Secretary shall, by 
     regulation, establish procedures necessary to ensure that 
     information provided under this section to a public housing 
     agency or owner is used, and confidentiality of such 
     information is maintained, as required under this section.
       (c) Opportunity to Dispute.--Before an adverse action is 
     taken with regard to assistance under for federally assisted 
     housing on the basis of a criminal record, the public housing 
     agency or owner shall provide the tenant or applicant with a 
     copy of the criminal record and an opportunity to dispute the 
     accuracy and relevance of that record.
       (d) Fee.--A public housing agency may be charged a 
     reasonable fee for information provided under subsection (a). 
     A public housing agency may require an owner of federally 
     assisted housing (that is not a public housing agency) to pay 
     such fee for any information that the agency acquires for the 
     owner pursuant to section 641(e) and subsection (a) of this 
     section.
       (e) Records Management.--Each public housing agency and 
     owner of federally assisted housing that receives criminal 
     record information pursuant to this section shall establish 
     and implement a system of records management that ensures 
     that any criminal record received by the agency or owner is--
       (1) maintained confidentially;
       (2) not misused or improperly disseminated; and
       (3) destroyed in a timely fashion, once the purpose for 
     which the record was requested has been accomplished.
       (f) Penalty.--Any person who knowingly and willfully 
     requests or obtains any information concerning an applicant 
     for, or tenant of, federally assisted housing pursuant to the 
     authority under this section under false pretenses, or any 
     person who knowingly and willfully discloses any such 
     information in any manner to any individual not entitled 
     under any law to receive it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor 
     and fined not more than $5,000. The term ``person'' as used 
     in this subsection shall include an officer, employee, or 
     authorized representative of any public housing agency or 
     owner.
       (g) Civil Action.--Any applicant for, or tenant of, 
     federally assisted housing affected by (1) a negligent or 
     knowing disclosure of information referred to in this section 
     about such person by an officer, employee, or authorized 
     representative of any public housing agency or owner of 
     federally assisted housing, which disclosure is not 
     authorized by this section, or (2) any other negligent or 
     knowing action that is inconsistent with this section, may 
     bring a civil action for damages and such other relief as may 
     be appropriate against any public housing agency or owner 
     responsible for such unauthorized action. The district court 
     of the United States in the district in which the affected 
     applicant or tenant resides, in which such unauthorized 
     action occurred, or in which the officer, employee, or 
     representative alleged to be responsible for any such 
     unauthorized action resides, shall have jurisdiction in such 
     matters. Appropriate relief that may be ordered by such 
     district courts shall include reasonable attorney's fees and 
     other litigation costs.
       (h) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``adult'' means a person who is 18 years of age or older, or 
     who has been convicted of a crime as an adult under any 
     Federal, State, or tribal law.

     SEC. 645. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this subtitle, the following definitions 
     shall apply:
       (1) Federally assisted housing.--The term ``federally 
     assisted housing'' means a dwelling unit--
       (A) in public housing (as such term is defined in section 
     102);
       (B) assisted with choice-based housing assistance under 
     title III;
       (C) in housing that is provided project-based 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) or pursuant to section 601(f) of 
     this Act, including new construction and substantial 
     rehabilitation projects;
       (D) in housing that is assisted under section 202 of the 
     Housing Act of 1959 (as amended by section 801 of the 
     Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act);
       (E) in housing that is assisted under section 202 of the 
     Housing Act of 1959, as such section existed before the 
     enactment of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 
     Housing Act;
       (F) in housing that is assisted under section 811 of the 
     Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act;
       (G) in housing financed by a loan or mortgage insured under 
     section 221(d)(3) of the National Housing Act that bears 
     interest at a rate determined under the proviso of section 
     221(d)(5) of such Act;
       (H) in housing insured, assisted, or held by the Secretary 
     or a State or State agency under section 236 of the National 
     Housing Act;
       (I) for purposes only of subsections 641(c), 641(d), 643, 
     and 644, in housing assisted under section 515 of the Housing 
     Act of 1949.
       (2) Owner.--The term ``owner'' means, with respect to 
     federally assisted housing, the entity or private person 
     (including a cooperative or public housing agency) that has 
     the legal right to lease or sublease dwelling units in such 
     housing.

  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Housing 
Opportunity and Responsibility Act [H.R. 2]. Among many things, H.R. 2 
would dismantle the 30-year bedrock principle of U.S. housing policy--
the Brooke amendment. With the punitive undertones of the bill and 
several proposed amendments, H.R. 2 represents Welfare Reform Part II . 
. . punishing the less fortunate for being poor. Using such euphemisms 
as local flexibility, income diversity, work incentives, and self-
sufficiency, H.R. 2 would shamefully take from those who have the least 
resources and are the most vulnerable the right to something as basic 
as food and clothing: a decent place to sleep at night.
  If we are going to have an honest debate about the best way to 
allocate federal resources to address the housing needs of this nation, 
then we need to place all of the facts on the table: U.S. housing 
policy is embarrassingly inequitable. Despite the low-income housing 
needs of this country, only 20 percent of housing outlays is allocated 
for providing housing assistance and subsidies to lower-income 
families. The other 80 percent is tax expenditures enjoyed by wealthier 
families who are able to deduct mortgage interest, property taxes, 
capital gains, and other investor-homeowner ``perks'' from their tax 
liabilities. The result of this unjust, inequitable housing policy: 
Over 70 percent of the families who qualify for low-income housing 
assistance are not receiving it.
  Without regard to this imbalance in Federal housing policy, H.R. 2 
would blatantly ignore those Americans who truly need housing 
assistance. H.R. 2 would mandate that housing authorities reserve a 
paltry 35 percent of new public housing units for families earning 30 
percent or less of the median income in a local area (i.e., the very 
low-income). The remaining slots would be reserved for families earning 
up to 80 percent of the area's median income. (Under current law, 85 
percent of public housing units must be provided to families with 
incomes at or below 50 percent of the area's median income.) In most 
communities, 30 percent of the area's median income is roughly 
equivalent to the poverty line. (In New York City, 30 percent of median 
income equals $11,700 for a two-person household.) To reserve such a 
small percentage of public housing for our poorest families, given the 
dramatic evidence of unaddressed needs, is an unforgivable act by my 
Republican colleagues.
  To add insult to injury, H.R. 2 includes a ``fungibility'' clause 
that would create a loophole that further weakens targeting provisions. 
H.R. 2 would allow public housing authorities to satisfy their meager 
35 percent targeting reserve for the very low-income by counting the 
number of Section 8 vouchers granted to such families. (The Section 8 
Program would be required to reserve only 40 percent of the slots for 
the very low-income.) Thus, if a public housing authority gives 75 
percent of Section 8 vouchers to the very poor, it would NOT be 
required to make public housing units available to such families. In 
effect, public housing would be offered to higher-income families, 
while the very low-income would be offered housing vouchers. On the 
surface it appears that public housing would then become more diversely 
populated and the very low-income would be free to secure 
housing outside of the traditional public authority ``warehouse.'' 
However, it is unreasonable to assume the private housing market could 
reasonably accommodate the elderly, disabled and large low-income 
families who have very special housing needs.

  H.R. 2 would cleverly erode the protections of the Brooke Amendment. 
Under current law, this amendment sets the maximum percentage that 
tenants could be charged for rent at 30 percent of adjusted gross 
income (AGI). However, H.R. 2 would introduce a deceitful practice 
touted as giving the tenant a ``choice'' in rent calculations. H.R. 2 
would allow the tenant to choose between two different calculations: 
(1) the tenant could choose a rent calculation based on income, in 
which case the rent could not exceed the 30 percent cap; or (2) the 
tenant could choose a flat-rate determined by the housing authority 
based on the rental value of the housing. This leads to

[[Page H2426]]

an obvious question: What assurances are there that the tenant will not 
mistakenly choose the rate that will be more costly to him or her?
  Moreover, H.R. 2 would require housing authorities to set monthly 
minimum rents at $25 to $50, and authorities could grant hardship 
exemptions from such minimum rent requirements. To individuals who make 
more than $100,000 per year, a minimum rent of $25 to $50 may seem 
reasonable. Such reasoning only illustrates how out of touch supporters 
of this bill are with the people they represent. For the state of New 
York, a $50 minimum rent would affect 900 households, and a $25 minimum 
rent would affect 1,828 households. For homeless families utilizing 
special rent assistance, but who have no income, this minimum rent 
would be a hardship. For large families receiving AFDC in low benefit 
states, this minimum rent would be a hardship. For families awaiting 
determination of eligibility for public benefits, this minimum would be 
a hardship. For individuals and families transitioning from 
homelessness to housing, this minimum rent would be a hardship. Yes, 
many of the people that we represent have little to no income at all. 
The Congress should be compassionate enough to grant these families 
some leeway. Support the Velazquez amendment that would only allow a 
minimum rent up to $25 and would grant the U.S. Department of Housing 
and Urban Development (HUD) the authority to define eligibility for the 
exemption.
  Finally, H.R. 2 would permit the shortsighted, misguided practice of 
turning over state public housing funds to local governments in the 
form of a block grant without regard to vital protections. The Home 
Rule Flexibility Grant could be utilized by cities and towns to develop 
and administer their own low-income housing programs. Again, the 
perverse possibilities of such a fund are crystal clear. Local 
governments, already grappling with fiscal viability, may choose to use 
federal housing funds for other city needs. Local governments would be 
free to establish their own rules and regulations regarding income 
targeting provisions, 30 percent rent ceilings and other tenant 
protections.
  Undoubtedly, H.R. 2 is a bad bill. It is not a marked improvement 
over last year's failed effort to reform the nation's public housing 
policy. It contains minor provisions that do some overall good for the 
community development and housing needs of our most vulnerable: 
permitting HUD to take over chronically troubled housing authorities; 
permitting the demolition of obsolete, dilapidated urban public 
housing; and permitting ``elderly only'' or ``disabled only'' public 
housing buildings. However, these are crumbs compared to the overall 
famine in housing face by 5.3 million poor families who pay more than 
50 percent of their income for rent and/or live in substandard housing. 
This bill does little to provide ``a housing opportunity'' for our 
vulnerable citizens and abdicates a great deal of federal 
``responsibility.'' Vote ``no'' on the so-called ``Housing Opportunity 
and Responsibility 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. 
Stearns) 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 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.

                          ____________________