[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 62 (Tuesday, May 13, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2553-H2567]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           HOUSING OPPORTUNITY AND RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1997

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

                              {time}  1607


                     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. LaHood 
Chairman pro tempore in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Thursday, May 8, 1997, title VI was open for amendment at any point.
  Are there any amendments to title VI?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
protect two amendments in title VI, if we are to close this title, 
amendment No. 7 by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez], and 
amendment No. 54 by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith]. I ask 
unanimous consent that if it is the expectation of the Chair that we 
will close title VI, that there be permission on the part of the Chair 
to entertain these 2 amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there other amendments to title VI?
  The Clerk will designate title VII.
  The text of title VII is as follows:

       TITLE VII--AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 701. RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE.

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

     SEC. 702. TREATMENT OF OCCUPANCY STANDARDS.

       The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall not 
     directly or indirectly establish a national occupancy 
     standard.

     SEC. 703. IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN.

       (a) Implementation.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall implement the 
     Ida Barbour Revitalization Plan of the City of Portsmouth, 
     Virginia, in a manner consistent with existing limitations 
     under law.
       (2) Waivers.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     shall consider and make any waivers to existing regulations 
     and other requirements consistent with the plan described in 
     paragraph (1) to enable timely implementation of such plan, 
     except that generally applicable regulations and other 
     requirements governing the award of funding under programs 
     for which assistance is applied for in connection with such 
     plan shall apply.
       (b) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act and annually thereafter through the 
     year 2000, the city described in subsection (a)(1) shall 
     submit a report to the Secretary on progress in implementing 
     the plan described in that subsection.
       (2) Contents.--Each report submitted under this subsection 
     shall include--
       (A) quantifiable measures revealing the increase in 
     homeowners, employment, tax base, voucher allocation, 
     leverage ratio of funds, impact on and compliance with the 
     consolidated plan of the city;
       (B) identification of regulatory and statutory obstacles 
     that--
       (i) have caused or are causing unnecessary delays in the 
     successful implementation of the consolidated plan; or
       (ii) are contributing to unnecessary costs associated with 
     the revitalization; and
       (C) any other information that the Secretary considers to 
     be appropriate.

     SEC. 704. INCOME ELIGIBILITY FOR HOME AND CDBG PROGRAMS.

       (a) Home Investment Partnerships.--The Cranston-Gonzalez 
     National Affordable Housing Act is amended as follows:
       (1) Definitions.--In section 104(10) (42 U.S.C. 
     12704(10))--
       (A) by striking ``income ceilings higher or lower'' and 
     inserting ``an income ceiling higher'';
       (B) by striking ``variations are'' and inserting 
     ``variation is''; and
       (C) by striking ``high or''.
       (2) Income targeting.--In section 214(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 
     12744(1)(A))--
       (A) by striking ``income ceilings higher or lower'' and 
     inserting ``an income ceiling higher'';
       (B) by striking ``variations are'' and inserting 
     ``variation is''; and
       (C) By striking ``high or''.
       (3) Rent limits.--In section 215(a)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 
     12745(a)(1)(A))--
       (A) By striking ``income ceilings higher or lower'' and 
     inserting ``an income ceiling higher'';
       (B) By striking ``variations are'' and inserting 
     ``variation is''; and
       (C) by striking ``high or''.
       (b) CDBG.--Section 102(a)(20) of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302(a)(20)) is amended by 
     striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following new 
     subparagraphs:
       ``(B) The Secretary may--
       ``(i) with respect to any reference in subparagraph (A) to 
     50 percent of the median income of the area involved, 
     establish percentages of median income for any area that are 
     higher or lower than 50 percent if the Secretary finds such 
     variations to be necessary because of unusually high or low 
     family incomes in such area; and
       ``(ii) with respect to any reference in subparagraph (A) to 
     80 percent of the median income of the area involved, 
     establish a percentage of median income for any area that is 
     higher than 80 percent if the Secretary finds such variation 
     to be necessary because of unusually low family incomes in 
     such area.''.

     SEC. 705. PROHIBITION OF USE OF CDBG GRANTS FOR EMPLOYMENT 
                   RELOCATION ACTIVITIES.

       Section 105 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
     1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(h) Prohibition of Use of Assistance for Employment 
     Relation Activities.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no amount from a grant under section 106 made in fiscal 
     year 1997 or any succeeding fiscal year may be used for any 
     activity (including any infrastructure improvement) that is 
     intended, or is likely, to facilitate the relocation of 
     expansion of any industrial or commercial plant, facility, or 
     operation, from one area to another area, if the relocation 
     or expansion will result in a loss of employment in the area 
     from which the relocation or expansion occurs.''.

     SEC. 706. USE OF AMERICAN PRODUCTS.

       (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--It 
     is the sense of the Congress that, to the greatest extent 
     practicable, all equipment and products purchased with funds 
     made available in this Act should be American made.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using 
     funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal 
     agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to 
     such entity a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a) by the Congress.

     SEC. 707. CONSULTATION WITH AFFECTED AREAS IN SETTLEMENT OF 
                   LITIGATION.

       In negotiating any settlement of, or consent decree for, 
     any litigation regarding public housing or rental assistance 
     (under title III of this Act or the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937, as in effect before the effective date of the repeal 
     under section 601(b) of this Act) that involves the Secretary 
     and any public housing agency or any unit of general local 
     government, the Secretary shall consult with any units of 
     general local government and public housing agencies having 
     jurisdictions that are adjacent to the jurisdiction of the 
     public housing agency involved.

     SEC. 708. USE OF ASSISTED HOUSING BY ALIENS.

       Section 214 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 1436a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``Secretary of 
     Housing and Urban Development'' and inserting ``applicable 
     Secretary'';
       (2) in subsection (c)(1)(B), by moving clauses (ii) and 
     (iii) 2 ems to the left;

[[Page H2554]]

       (3) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(A)--
       (i) by striking ``Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development'' and inserting ``applicable Secretary''; and
       (ii) by striking ``the Secretary'' and inserting ``the 
     applicable Secretary'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), in the matter following subparagraph 
     (B)--
       (i) by inserting ``applicable'' before ``Secretary''; and
       (ii) by moving such matter (as so amended by clause (i)) 2 
     ems to the right;
       (C) in paragraph (4)(B)(ii), by inserting ``applicable'' 
     before ``Secretary'';
       (D) in paragraph (5), by striking ``the Secretary'' and 
     inserting ``the applicable Secretary''; and
       (E) in paragraph (6), by inserting ``applicable'' before 
     ``Secretary'';
       (4) in subsection (h) (as added by section 576 of the 
     Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
     of 1996 (division C of Public 104-208))--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``Except in the case of an election under 
     paragraph (2)(A), no'' and inserting ``No'';
       (ii) by striking ``this section'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (d)''; and
       (iii) by inserting ``applicable'' before ``Secretary''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(A) may, notwithstanding paragraph (1) of this 
     subsection, elect not to affirmatively establish and verify 
     eligibility before providing financial assistance''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``in complying with 
     this section'' and inserting ``in carrying out subsection 
     (d)''; and
       (5) by redesignating subsection (h) (as amended by 
     paragraph (4)) as subsection (i).

     SEC. 709. PROTECTION OF SENIOR HOMEOWNERS UNDER REVERSE 
                   MORTGAGE PROGRAM.

       (a) Disclosure Requirements; Prohibition of Funding of 
     Unnecessary or Excessive Costs.--Section 255(d) of the 
     National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-20(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D); 
     and
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) has received full disclosure of all costs to the 
     mortgagor for obtaining the mortgage, including any costs of 
     estate planning, financial advice, or other related services; 
     and'';
       (2) in paragraph (9)(F), by striking ``and'';
       (3) in paragraph (10), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(11) have been made with such restrictions as the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate to ensure that the 
     mortgagor does not fund any unnecessary or excessive costs 
     for obtaining the mortgage, including any costs of estate 
     planning, financial advice, or other related services; 
     such restrictions shall include a requirement that the 
     mortgage ask the mortgagor about any fees that the 
     mortgagor has incurred in connection with obtaining the 
     mortgage and a requirement that the mortgagee be 
     responsible for ensuring that the disclosures required by 
     subsection (d)(2)(C) are made.''.
       (b) Implementation.--
       (1) Notice.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     shall, by interim notice, implement the amendments made by 
     subsection (a) in an expeditious manner, as determined by the 
     Secretary. Such notice shall not be effective after the date 
     of the effectiveness of the final regulations issued under 
     paragraph (2) of this subsection.
       (2) Regulations.--The Secretary shall, not later than the 
     expiration of the 90-day period beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, issue final regulations to implement 
     the amendments made by subsection (a). Such regulations shall 
     be issued only after notice and opportunity for public 
     comment pursuant to the provisions of section 553 of title 5, 
     United States Code (notwithstanding subsections (a)(2) and 
     (b)(B) of such section).

     SEC. 710. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title and the amendments made by this title shall take 
     effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to title VII?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we are now near the end, I believe, of consideration of 
amendments to H.R. 2, and at this point I think it is appropriate that 
we reflect on the fact that the central tenets of the bill and the 
themes of the bill are left intact by one of the actions of the House 
to this point, and that is mainly to create an environment where we can 
begin to successfully address core issues of poverty.
  H.R. 2 says, in a very significant way, that we will not be able to 
end poverty or legislate the end of poverty from Washington or from any 
of the State capitols. In fact, if we are to make progress in our war 
against poverty, if we are to begin to transform communities, if we are 
to begin to empower communities and individuals and families, that will 
happen because we create the right set of incentives for 
responsibility, for work, for family, for economic development, for 
jobs, for empowerment, for rebuilding communities.
  That will happen at the grassroots level, and it will happen because 
we empower and we create incentives so leaders of the community will 
arise and begin to form coalitions and groups that begin to transform 
their own backyard.
  In this bill that we have before the House right now, Mr. Chairman, 
we begin that process by removing the disincentives to work which exist 
right now, by allowing local housing authorities more responsibility in 
meeting their local concerns and challenges, by ensuring that we 
maintain the synergy of having the working class, the working poor, 
living side by side with those that are unemployed; not because we want 
to deny benefits to people who are unemployed, but because we 
understand that it has been a disastrous experience to superconcentrate 
poverty in certain areas.
  When I think back to some of the trips that I have made throughout 
the country to meet with people of low-income areas, and I think about 
places like State Street in Chicago, there are 4\1/2\ straight miles of 
nothing but public housing, 20-story buildings one after another, where 
because of Federal policy we have superconcentrated poverty, creating 
an environment where virtually everybody is unemployed, and I mean the 
unemployment rate is approximately 99 percent, Mr. Chairman; creating 
an environment where halls are sealed off so criminal activity can take 
place, terrorizing the law-abiding that are trying to live by the rules 
that happen to be in public housing.
  We are saying in H.R. 2 we are going to put an end to that, we are 
going to stop looking the other way, we are going to stop tolerating 
that. We are going to look forward to the fact that we expect levels of 
responsibility, that we are going to expect people who are law-abiding 
to be protected, that we are not going to be standing with the people 
who are breaking the law, who are terrorizing those who are trying to 
live peaceably. We are going to be standing with the families, with the 
people that have the capacity to take a job, and who want to take a job 
and want to earn more money for their families. We are going to be 
standing with them, so we eliminate the rules that punish them and that 
work against them.
  We are going to be standing with the communities that want the 
empowerment, that want that flexibility in order to remake themselves, 
to reconnect themselves with their own civic responsibility, and yes, 
we are for community service. We believe that is an important part of 
all this, because we think out there, Mr. Chairman, that there are 
hundreds of thousands of tenants in low-income areas in public housing 
that, not because of legislation in Washington, not because of 
legislation in the State capitols, but because it is the right thing to 
do, will begin the process of transforming their own communities.
  We are not asking people to serve Big Brother, we are not asking 
people to serve some far-off master or some State capitol decision. We 
are asking people to give of themselves in their own community and in 
their own building, in their own hallway. These are the things that we 
are asking in H.R. 2, to enable communities to assume responsibility 
for their own destiny, to give them the right set of incentives so they 
can meet those to allow people to be everything they can be; not to 
punish work, but rather to create the incentives for the people who can 
work, want to work, have the ability to work, who can do that, so we do 
not close them out.

                              {time}  1615

  I know that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] has been 
deeply committed to many of these same goals of creating mixed income 
and creating environments where we can begin to try and attack the core 
issues of poverty. I know the gentleman would certainly agree that it 
is both cost-effective and far more humane to begin to get to the root 
causes of poverty, to begin to address them. That is what the people in 
the community

[[Page H2555]]

need. That is what the people of low income need and certainly, I 
think, what taxpayers want. They want to know that they are getting 
value for the dollar and they want to see that the people who have 
ability to transition back into the work force or to transition back to 
market-rate units can do that.
  Although we have had some concerns about how we get there, I know 
when this is said and done, this bill is up for final passage, that we 
will be able to move forward and achieve those goals.


           Amendment Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts:
       Page 287, after line 15, insert the following:
       ``(6) Community work requirement.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     as a condition of continued assistance under any existing 
     contract for section 8 project-based assistance and of 
     entering into any new or renewal contract for such 
     assistance, each adult owner of the housing subject to (or to 
     be subject to) the contract shall contribute not less than 8 
     hours of work per month (not including political activities) 
     within the community in which the housing is located, which 
     may include work performed on locations other than the 
     housing.
       ``(B) Exemptions.--The requirement under subparagraph (A) 
     shall not apply to any owner who is an individual who is--
       ``(i) an elderly person;
       ``(ii) a person with disabilities;
       ``(iii) working, attending school or vocational training, 
     or otherwise complying with work requirements applicable 
     under other public assistance programs (as determined by the 
     agencies or organizations responsible for administering such 
     programs); or
       ``(iv) otherwise physically impaired to the extent that 
     they are unable to comply with the requirement, as certified 
     by a doctor.
       ``(C) Definition.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term 
     `owner' includes any individual who is the sole owner of 
     housing subject to a contract referred to in subparagraph 
     (A), any member of the board of directors of any for-profit 
     or nonprofit corporation that is an owner of such housing, 
     and any general partner or limited partner of any partnership 
     that is an owner of such housing.''.
       Page 287, line 16, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(7)''.

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I 
ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order 
against the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, we have debated long and 
hard on this bill, the idea of a mandatory work requirement that is 
referred to as mandatory voluntarism. We have spent hours debating the 
provision in H.R. 2 which would require public housing residents, 
including mothers of young children, to perform 8 hours of community 
service each month. Whether this represents mandatory voluntarism, as 
Democrats have charged, or work for benefit, as Republicans have 
claimed, the sponsors of H.R. 2 were adamant that public housing 
residents who are not employed should be required to perform community 
service or be evicted from public housing.
  Well, fair is fair. This amendment would take the very same 
requirement, the very same idea, the very same sense of giving back 
something to our country and apply it to owners of section 8 housing.
  These owners get a clear financial benefit from the Government, 
federally subsidized rents on projects owned by such owners. Without 
such assistance, many such properties would go bankrupt, potentially 
bankrupting their owners.
  Therefore, all this amendment says is that, if public housing 
residents who get a financial benefit from the Government should 
perform community service, so should the landlords. Please note that my 
amendment contains identical language and the provisions as those 
contained in H.R. 2 in the section dealing with public housing 
residents. We include exceptions for the elderly. We include exceptions 
for the disabled. And we include exceptions for anyone working or 
complying with welfare requirements.
  This amendment only applies to idle landlords, those who simply 
collect rent checks from the Federal Government or spend their days 
watching Oprah Winfrey or playing golf all day. In other words, 
basically what we are suggesting here, Mr. Chairman, is what is good 
for the goose is good for the gander. What we want to do is make 
certain that this is not a punitive provision that is contained in H.R. 
2, which would suggest only people in public housing who get a benefit 
from the Government who are not working should go ahead and volunteer 
but, rather, anyone who gets a benefit from public housing programs who 
does not work ought to also volunteer as well.
  I hope that the gentleman from New York would consider accepting this 
amendment in the spirit of voluntarism which he has so adeptly included 
in the rest of this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Lazio] withdraw his point of order?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  This amendment is offered obviously in response to the various 
attempts to strike the community service requirement in the bill and in 
fact, if adopted, would have the counterproductive effect of 
discouraging additional units of housing for low income people under 
the section 8 program.
  The differentiation is, in this case, the program was created in 
order to encourage owners to develop properties and to dedicate their 
units to service for people of low income, low and moderate income.
  So in that sense, there is very much a public mission involved in 
this. We are not extending a benefit to owners of low-income housing, 
which only moves one way, in the direction of the owner. In fact, in 
this sense there is a sense of reciprocity, that the benefit, to the 
extent that there is one, is the incentive to develop properties for 
low-income individuals and that in exchange for these incentives that 
the owner would commit by law to ensure that those units in his 
building or her building were only available to those of low income or 
moderately low income.
  Of course, the adoption of this amendment, as I say, is in response, 
I believe, to the actions of this House in defense of the community 
service requirement but would have the perverse effect, in the end, of 
potentially undermining our ability to expand our affordable housing 
stock, ensuring that we have fewer owners who are participating in this 
program. And I would say, Mr. Chairman, in the end as we begin to think 
about restructuring this entire section 8 portfolio, which is an 
exceptional challenge, that the timeliness of such an amendment could 
not be worse in terms of trying to preserve the affordability of 
certain of these amendments.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
gentleman yielding to me. I would point out to the gentleman that it 
seems to me that we were talking about an awfully important lofty 
principle last week in terms of making certain that people get a 
benefit from the Government in the form of subsidized housing ought to 
be required to give something back to the country in terms of 
volunteering.
  We are not suggesting that anybody that is working or anybody that is 
elderly or anybody that is disabled should be covered by this 
amendment. We are saying if you are a coupon clipper, if you are just 
sitting back at home and you have instructed some----
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me say 
to the gentleman, the difference is clearly here that we are, the 
community is receiving something back from the owners. They are 
receiving the commitment by the owners that they will develop property 
and they will make all the units available to people of low and 
moderate income. So there is a sense of reciprocity.
  In fact, when we did do the community service, we did have a hearing 
in this House over the community service amendments, there was a sense 
on the

[[Page H2556]]

part of this House that we thought that it was entirely appropriate for 
people who were residents in public housing who were tenants and who 
received the benefit of public housing and very often had their 
utilities paid for, that they could, that we would ask the nonelderly, 
the nondisabled, the people that are not involved in educational or 
work experiences to give of themselves to help rebuild their own 
communities; 2 hours a week, 8 hours a month, 15 hours a day, an 
entirely reasonable request in return for the benefit.
  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, does the gentleman feel 
that only the poor should be required to give something back to their 
country?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say 
to the gentleman, wherever there is a one-way street, wherever an 
individual, no matter what income, is receiving the benefit and giving 
nothing back to the community, then in those situations we believe 
community service and community work are appropriate. In those 
situations, as in the case of owners of section 8 housing, where we 
have encouraged them, the Federal Government went on and encouraged, 
enticed them to make the commitment to build affordable units, that is 
a two-way street.
  The real bottom line here is that we have an enormous human potential 
of hundreds of thousands of Americans who are tenants in public housing 
that can be marshaled to bring about the level of change where we can 
begin to attack these core issues of poverty because in the end we have 
a great deal of talent at our disposal. We are not going to legislate 
the end of poverty. We are going to have change in our communities 
because people in these communities can begin to transform their own 
backyards.
  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 appreciate the 
gentleman from New York yielding to me.
  I would just like to point out that this is a very clear and, I 
think, important amendment. It is establishing, I think, a reasonable 
principle, that just because you have money in America does not mean 
you should be exempted from these requirements that we seem to be so 
intent on putting on the poor, that the poor should work, that the poor 
are really the root cause of the moral decay of America because they 
are on welfare or because they accept public housing, that that is 
really the problem, the cancer that is eating at the soul of America.
  I would just suggest that, having spent enough time around these so-
called hallowed halls of justice in Washington, DC, that we see every 
bit as much immorality take place on this floor or around this city as 
we do any place else in America. I do not think that it is right that 
we say, listen, if you are a passive investor, we are not suggesting if 
you are actually managing the project, if you are working in the 
community, if you are actually building the housing, if you are 
involved in some way, that you should be covered under this 
requirement. We are just saying, if you are simply a passive investor, 
if you are not working in any other cause of employment, if you are 
just sitting back at home clipping coupons and investing and getting 
almost a guaranteed give-back from the Federal Government for providing 
project based section 8s, one of the richest programs in this country, 
one of the programs that the other side of the aisle suggests needs to 
be reformed, and I could not agree with more, we need to reform it. I 
have worked with Secretary Cuomo very closely. I have worked with the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] on the Committee on 
Appropriations in trying to fashion some new ways of dealing with the 
overrich subsidies that go to some of the landlords that invest in the 
project based section 8 programs.
  All we are suggesting is, hey, look, you want to sit back and get 20, 
30, 40 percent on your money at taxpayer subsidy and then not do any 
work for it and you are not working in any other job throughout the 
year, maybe, just maybe it ought to be a reasonable premise that we 
expect you to do some volunteer work. It is only 8 hours a month, as 
the gentleman points out, only 15 minutes a day. All we want these 
passive investors, these coupon clippers to do is give us 15 minutes a 
day of volunteer work.
  I would hope that the gentleman from New York would be willing to 
stand up to some of the wealthy and powerful investors and landlords of 
this country just as we are willing to stand up to those poor people 
that live in public housing and ask those wealthy and powerful 
individuals to give just as much back to America who are getting so 
much out of America. If you look at the kinds of subsidies that are 
received in terms of the amount of money that an individual who 
occupies a single unit of public housing receives versus the kind of 
money that comes back to passive investors in the project based section 
8 program lining their pockets, believe me, a lot more money flows into 
the back pockets of project based section 8s than it does of public 
housing.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would just mention that in my 
background the only kind of coupon clipping that I was ever aware of 
was when my mom clipped the coupons for the supermarket.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield, I am glad that the gentleman now knows that there 
are other kinds of coupons that are clipped in America.

                              {time}  1630

  Because, believe me, if we are going to sit in the Congress of the 
United States, we should know that there are other people that are 
picking the pockets of those kind of coupon clippers that the gentleman 
grew up with.
  I would suggest to the gentleman that it is important that we be 
aware of just how much they get out of this country and how many 
hundreds of billions of dollars comes out of the Congress of the United 
States that goes into their back pockets. Because that is really what 
goes on in this Chamber and that is really where the dollars need to be 
saved if we are to balance the budget.
  We have cut the housing budget from $28 billion a year down to $20 
billion a year. We have cut the homeless spending by a quarter. And 
what we do is we are going to say then that we are going to jack up the 
rents on the people that go into public housing, we are going to 
increase the incomes on the people that go into public housing, we will 
not do anything for the very poor that will no longer be eligible for 
public housing. They will not be taken care of; we will not even 
provide them with homeless programs. But boy, oh, boy, we should 
certainly not ask the landlords that are profiting so much on these 
projects, we should not ask them that are not working, are not 
disabled, are not elderly to just give 15 minutes a day, 15 minutes a 
day to volunteer on behalf of helping others.
  I do not think it is a lot to ask. I think we are asking the same 
thing of people involved in public housing themselves, and I would 
hope, again, that the gentleman from New York would end up accepting 
this very small requirement.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). 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 pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 133, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments?


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. NADLER

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler:
       Page 335, after line 6, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 709. TRANSFER OF SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY FOR PROVIDING 
                   HOUSING FOR LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME FAMILIES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     (including the Federal

[[Page H2557]]

     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949), the 
     property known as 252 Seventh Avenue in New York County, New 
     York is authorized to be conveyed in its existing condition 
     under a public benefit discount to a non-profit organization 
     that has among its purposes providing housing for low-income 
     individuals or families provided, that such property is 
     determined by the Administrator of General Services to be 
     surplus to the needs of the government and provided it is 
     determined by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     that such property will be used by such non-profit 
     organization to provide housing for low- and moderate-income 
     families or individuals.
       (b)(1) Public benefit discount.--The amount of the public 
     benefit discount available under this section shall be 75 
     percent of the estimated fair market value of the property, 
     except that the Secretary may discount by a greater 
     percentage if the Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Administrator, determines that a higher percentage is 
     justified due to any benefit which will accrue to the United 
     States from the use of such property for the public purpose 
     of providing low- and moderate-income housing.
       (2) Reverter.--The Administrator shall require that the 
     property be used for at least 30 years for the public purpose 
     for which it was originally conveyed, or such longer period 
     of time as the Administrator feels necessary, to protect the 
     Federal interest and to promote the public purpose. If this 
     condition is not met, the property shall revert to the United 
     States.
       (3) Determination of fair market value.--The Administrator 
     shall determine estimated fair market value in accordance 
     with Federal appraisal standards and procedures.
       (4) Deposit of proceeds.--The Administrator of General 
     Services shall deposit any proceeds received under this 
     subsection in the special account established pursuant to 
     section 204(h)(2) of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949.
       (5) Additional terms and conditions.--The Administrator may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Administrator 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States and to accomplish a public purpose.

  Mr. NADLER (During the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment to 
H.R. 2. I would like to thank first of all the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Lazio], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the 
chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], and the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Horn], and their staffs for their hard 
work and cooperation on this amendment. I deeply appreciate the 
bipartisan goodwill that was demonstrated in the process of bringing 
this amendment to the floor.
  In this era of severely limited resources, we must do all we can with 
what we have to create affordable housing in both the public and 
private sectors. This amendment will do just that in a little way. This 
amendment will give the General Services Administration and the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development the option to transfer a 
parcel of surplus property in my district in New York to a nonprofit 
agency to provide low- and moderate-income housing.
  The parameters laid out in the amendment are strict. The nonprofit 
agency must be experienced in the provision of housing for low-income 
families or individuals. The property must be used for low- and 
moderate-income housing for at least 30 years. If it is not, its title 
will revert back to the United States.
  The Department of Housing and Urban Development will be allowed to 
require any additional terms and conditions, such as, for example, 
evidence of adequate financing, evidence of financial responsibility 
and so forth, that it deems necessary to protect the interests of the 
United States and to accomplish the goals of providing low- to 
moderate-income housing.
  While this amendment does not mandate the General Services 
Administration to transfer this property in so many words, it is our 
intent to strongly encourage GSA to allow for the conversion of this 
space to affordable housing.
  Let me make it quite clear that such a transfer is the intent of this 
amendment. This amendment does not mandate the GSA to transfer the 
property, only to allow for the unlikely possibility that no proposal 
meets the strict requirements set forth in the amendment, although we 
believe that there will be such a proposal.
  I again thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the degree 
of collegiality and cooperation they have shown in bringing this 
amendment to the floor.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
gentleman's amendment, and I congratulate the gentleman from New York 
for bringing forth this amendment. We have had a chance to work 
together and I want to thank him for his cooperation in working with 
the committee staff.
  I believe this is an appropriate and positive reuse for this 
particular property, and I am supportive of the gentleman's efforts and 
will be supportive of this amendment when it comes to a vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  I wanted to just get clear on how long a period of time. We have 
already, as I understand it, about a 60-day set-aside for homeless 
programs that are able to bid on these properties. I wondered if the 
gentleman from New York has any idea of what time period that the 
properties would then be held for.
  First, let me say that I think the intent of the gentleman from New 
York is something I very strongly would favor, I think he is doing the 
people that are providing low-income housing a real service in terms of 
providing this amendment on the House floor, and I very much appreciate 
the gentleman's thoughtful and helpful suggestions.
  I want to just try to understand how long the properties themselves, 
if the gentleman has an understanding of how long those might be tied 
up for.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, it is one piece of property, first of all. 
This only applies to one piece of property, by its terms. A particular 
address is set in the bill. This particular piece of property has 
already been declared not usable for McKinney Act purposes. So that is 
not a question.
  It is our belief that this will be transferred within a period of 
months, hopefully, to the agency for low income cooperative housing, 
and that it will proceed to develop it for such purposes.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I 
appreciate the gentleman's clarification. This is just for this single 
piece of property; it is not a provision across the board?
  Mr. NADLER. If the gentleman would continue to yield, yes, that is 
correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
gentleman's clarification.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler]).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Lazio], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Housing and Community Opportunity, and the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Calvert].
  Mr. Chairman, one of the primary purposes of the bill we are 
discussing today is to provide affordable housing for Americans. 
Certainly one major source of affordable, quality and unsubsidized 
housing is manufactured housing. At an average cost of $37,000, 
manufactured housing provides ownership opportunities to a wide range 
of Americans, including single parents, first-time home buyers, senior 
citizens, and young families, and now represents one out of every three 
new homes sold in the United States of America.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROEMER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, although the manufactured housing program 
is largely financed through industry-funded label fees and currently 
has a surplus of $7.5 million, there are significant staffing 
shortfalls in the Manufactured Housing and Standards Division in the 
Department of Housing and

[[Page H2558]]

Urban Development. Currently there are only 10 professional and 3 
clerical staff administering the entire program, compared with the 
staffing level of 35 in 1984 when production levels were significantly 
lower.
  Even though these personnel costs are primarily funded by the 
manufactured housing industry, and there are more than enough funds to 
pay for some reasonable personnel additions, program staffing levels 
are subject to overall HUD and OMB salary and expense caps.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would add that while 
there is not necessarily a need to return to the 1984 staffing levels, 
there is concern that the basic functions of the manufactured housing 
programs, such as issuing interpretations and updating even 
noncontroversial standards, are falling behind schedule.
  In order to provide adequate staffing and administration of this 
program, I would like to work with the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Lazio], the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert], and other Members 
of this body, including the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], 
in a bipartisan manner to set separate and distinct salary and expense 
caps for the manufactured housing program.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROEMER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank both the 
gentleman from California and the gentleman from Indiana for their 
interest and commitment to manufactured housing. It is one of the 
preeminent affordable housing tools that we have in America, and I want 
to say that we should be taking every reasonable action to preserve the 
Federal manufactured housing program.
  In order to provide for the adequate staffing of the manufactured 
housing program, which is largely, as the gentleman said, self-funded 
through industry label fees and currently has a surplus in excess of $7 
million, I recognize that it may be necessary to exempt the 
manufactured housing program from overall HUD and OMB salary and 
expense caps and create separate and distinct caps for the program. 
That would only be fair and reasonable under the circumstances. In 
fact, I circulated a letter to Secretary Cuomo signed by 72 Democrats 
and Republicans in the House expressing support for such changes.
  I certainly look forward to working with my colleagues to make this 
important modification, and would tell both the gentleman from 
California and the gentleman from Indiana that, in addition, we have 
been working with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], on this, 
and that I greatly appreciate their interest and commitment to this and 
look forward to working together in a collaborative way to make sure 
these changes take place.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman 
and the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Massachusetts 
for their help on this very important issue to my district, to Indiana 
and to America, and look forward to working in a bipartisan way to 
solve this problem.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROEMER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank my 
good friend from Indiana for the work he has done. He has brought this 
to a lot of people's attention in the past and hosted meetings and the 
like trying to make certain that manufactured housing folks get the 
necessary personnel they need out of HUD, and we appreciate the 
gentleman's hard work on this issue.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments?


                 Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. TOWNS

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

       Amendment No. 53 offered by Mr. Towns:
       Page 256, after line 9, insert the following:
       ``(10) Whether the agency has conducted and regularly 
     updated an assessment to identify any pest control problems 
     in the public housing owned or operated by the agency and the 
     extent to which the agency is effective in carrying out a 
     strategy to eradicate or control such problems, which 
     assessment and strategy shall be included in the local 
     housing management plan for the agency under section 106.''.
       Page 256, line 10, strike ``(10)'' and insert ``(11)''.

  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, in a study released last week, scientists 
reported that children who are allergic to cockroaches and heavily 
exposed to other insects were three times more likely to be 
hospitalized than other asthmatic youth. Many of these youngsters live 
in the poorest areas of our Nation, areas with a high concentration of 
public housing units.
  In response to the findings of this study, I rise today to offer an 
amendment which will help to save the lives of many asthmatic children 
who live in public housing. We all know that asthma is one of the most 
common chronic childhood diseases and we know now that there is a 
strong link between cockroaches and asthma. According to the New 
England Journal of Medicine, cockroaches cause one quarter of all 
asthma in inner cities. Asthma is increasing in cities and in suburbs, 
but it is especially bad in our inner cities.
  My amendment would permit the Secretary to provide for assessments to 
identify any pest control programs and evaluate the performance of 
public housing agencies as it relates to the eradication or control of 
the pest problem in public housing.
  This year in the Committee on Commerce we have had numerous hearings 
on ozone and particulate matter and its possible effects on children 
with asthma. As we try to find reasonable solutions to this 
environmental issue, let us take this opportunity to solve a problem 
that we know is a major cause of asthma in inner city children.
  I would also like to point out that in 1990, and we are spending a 
lot more now than then, that we spent $6.2 billion in terms of dealing 
with asthma. Now that we know that cockroaches have a lot to do with 
it, we will be able to save some money. So I am hoping that my 
colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment because this is a 
money-saving amendment that also makes it possible to improve the 
quality of life for so many people.

                              {time}  1645

  I urge the adoption of this amendment because it saves money and it 
also protects lives and improves the quality of health.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns] 
for offering this amendment. It is in response, I believe in part, 
certainly to the experiences of the gentleman in traveling around 
various urban areas and also to the recent articles that have been 
published with respect to the incidence of asthma among young people, 
among children in particular, who have been in contact with 
cockroaches. The very fact that certain housing developments have 
infestations of cockroaches and other pests, and I have been in some of 
the units where there has been what can only be described as sort of a 
proliferation of these pests where they are overrunning the unit. It is 
unbelievable that in America we tolerate this, but it is also a 
reflection of the fact that there has been some very poor performance 
on the part of certain housing authorities in ensuring that this is 
taken care of.
  Although I compliment the gentleman, we should not need to have 
legislation in order to deal with this problem. This should be expected 
in terms of the performance of the housing authorities to ensure that 
there are healthy and sanitary conditions in these units. In fact, this 
is a significant problem. It is a significant problem, especially among 
inner city populations, but not only among inner city populations.
  Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that the gentleman offers this 
amendment, that this subject be part of the evaluation that takes place 
when we determine how well a housing authority is doing in discharging 
its basic duties. I offer my basic support and expect to be voting in 
favor of this amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want my colleagues to know that my good friend 
from New York, in promoting the so-

[[Page H2559]]

called RADAC this evening, has once again shown that he is interested 
in cleaning up the house. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns] has 
always been dedicated to serving the needs of some of the very poor 
people in his district he has very, very well represented and fought 
for here in the Congress. He is a close friend of mine, someone whose 
work I deeply admire. I appreciate the fact that he is trying to make 
sure that people who live in public housing are not forced to live in 
the conditions that all too often find themselves infested with 
cockroaches. Once again leading the charge on cleaning up the house is 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns].
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. LaHood]. The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word 
to join in a colloquy with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], the 
chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned about where we go on section 8 
project housing. As we have reviewed this issue in the Committee on the 
Budget over the last several years, it probably presents one of the 
toughest issues facing Congress. Left unchecked, section 8 contracts 
will deplete significantly our HUD funds. I did take to the desk an 
amendment that would have limited subsidies to section 8 housing 
contracts that were in excess of 120 percent of the fair market rental 
rates. The fact is that we need legislation that will end excessive 
taxpayer subsidies to landlords and bring back into line these 
excessive subsidies of rents.
  We have made many contractors and landlords millionaires while 
shortchanging low income renters and the American taxpayer. We need 
legislation that will end excessive taxpayer subsidies to landlords and 
bring back into line excessive subsidized rents. Out-of-wack rents that 
Uncle Sam pays must be brought into line with what everyone else pays.
  These out-of-wack rents for section 8 assisted housing, often are 
more than twice as high as fair market rents. In Las Vegas, the average 
federally assisted apartment is $820, while the private market rate is 
$380. Section 8 project owners have hit the jackpot here. In 
Pittsburgh, the comparison is $773 to $397. In Detroit, it's $751 to 
$479.
  Expiring subsidy contracts on FHA insured section 8 project-based 
properties is one of the toughest issues facing Congress. Let unchecked 
section 8 contracts will deplete all HUD funds for affordable housing 
and community development in a few years. Equally important is the 
portfolio restructuring--thousands of families are at risk of losing 
affordable housing.
  This year a record number of project-based and tenant-based section 8 
contracts will expire. And between 1998 and 2002 section 8 budget 
authority will need to almost double from $9.2 billion to $18.1 
billion. By 2002, approximately 2.7 million units or over 5 million 
low-income individuals will be affected.


                        portfolio restructuring

  The Congress and the administration are working together to reform 
section 8 FHA insured housing units. Unfortunately, the value of many 
properties in the insured section 8 portfolio is lower than the actual 
mortgages on the properties. Four objectives should be paramount--
  First, reducing the Federal Government's exposure to default, waste, 
and other expenses;
  Second, restructuring should be fair to the taxpayer;
  Third, insuring peace of mind and security for current residents of 
section 8 housing; and
  Fourth, ending rent subsidies that are higher than fair market value.


                       legislative action needed

  I have suggested limiting Federal payments to 120 percent of fair 
market rents and giving HUD authority to renegotiate section 8 
mortgages. We need to provide tax provisions that allow section 8 
owners to not be penalized, and insure that owners agree in exchange to 
preserve affordable units for low-income families.
  I would just like to inquire of the chairman of what he sees as the 
progress of legislation dealing with this issue, since the bill before 
us today does not deal with that issue.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman realizes, this 
problem was created not last year or 2 years ago or 5 years ago, but 
over 20 years ago when the section 8 program was created. At that time 
the Federal Government, in its infinite wisdom to encourage people to 
invest in low-income housing and develop housing that moved away from 
public housing to a more appropriate blend of private and public 
partnership, created the section 8 program.
  Unfortunately, when they created that program, we ended up on both 
sides of the deal, so to speak. By that I mean that we guaranteed 
mortgages through the FHA fund at the Federal Government for 40 years, 
but we guaranteed cash flow through the section 8 program for 20 years 
to the owners. So we are on both ends of the deal. To the extent that 
we rachet down the annual costs to keep up the units precipitously, 
which I believe we all would like, I certainly would like to see that 
happen, we risked that certain of these properties would end up in 
default as owners simply walk away from them, because these loans are 
guaranteed 100 cents on the dollar by the Federal Government. That 
simply means that the Federal Government would receive the property 
back and would be stuck for the entire bill because it would be 
responsible for repaying the bank for any money that is owed because we 
have guaranteed that mortgage. It is an enormous problem, I would say 
to the gentleman, because we have at-risk people there, we have seniors 
and disabled, we have people who are very vulnerable who are in section 
8 project-based assistance where apartments are subsidized. There is an 
effect on the community in terms of stabilization, and there is a 
potential effect on assessments in the area as a poorly maintained 
property could have a very deleterious effect on the surrounding 
community.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. If I can reclaim my time for a question, is 
there a timetable? Does the gentleman plan to bring out a bill dealing 
with this problem?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I would say to the gentleman, bills have 
already been introduced to deal with this problem. There is one bill 
that has been introduced by myself at the request of the administration 
which I think has some merit, that we have some disagreements with, but 
I think is appropriate in the sense that it moves toward the same 
themes of mixed income that we have been talking about in the context 
of H.R. 2, the bill before us today.
  There is another bill that has been introduced by the gentlewoman 
from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] that 
seeks to deal with this. My staff in working with the Senate has been 
working on this for months. It is a very difficult problem in the sense 
that there are tax consequences involved in this, there are potential 
issues of phantom income, there are potential consequences to the 
community in terms of assessments and tax bases. There are States 
involved in this program through risk sharing. Their ability to be 
properly rated is affected. It is a very, very complex problem that we 
want to completely understand. We are hampered, I would say to the 
gentleman, by an unbelievable lack of data on the part of HUD in order 
to make reasonable assumptions to have good policy.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I thank the gentleman.


           Amendment No. 54 Offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan

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

       Amendment No. 54 offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan:
       Page 294, strike line 5 and all that follows through page 
     297, line 4, and insert the following:

     SEC. 622. PET OWNERSHIP BY ELDERLY PERSONS AND PERSONS WITH 
                   DISABILITIES.

       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 BY ELDERLY PERSONS AND PERSONS WITH 
                   DISABILITIES IN FEDERALLY ASSISTED RENTAL 
                   HOUSING.

       ``(a) Right of Ownership.--A resident of a dwelling unit in 
     federally assisted rental housing who is an elderly person or 
     a person with disabilities 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

[[Page H2560]]

     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 payments of a 
     nominal fee and pet deposit by such 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 elderly person or person with 
     disabilities in connection with admission to, or continued 
     occupancy of, such housing by 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).
       ``(3) Elderly person and person with disabilities.--The 
     terms `elderly person' and `persons with disabilities' have 
     the meanings given such terms in section 102 of the Housing 
     Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 1997.
       ``(d) Regulations.--Subsections (a) through (c) of 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 no 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).''.

    AMENDMENT NO. 54, AS MODIFIED, OFFERED BY MR. SMITH OF MICHIGAN

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
changes at the desk to that amendment be accepted as the amendment 
under consideration.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment No. 54, as modified, offered by Mr. Smith of 
     Michigan:
       Page 294, strike line 5 and all that follows through page 
     297, line 4, and insert the following:

     SEC. 622. PET OWNERSHIP BY ELDERLY PERSONS AND PERSONS WITH 
                   DISABILITIES.

       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 BY ELDERLY PERSONS AND PERSONS WITH 
                   DISABILITIES IN FEDERALLY ASSISTED RENTAL 
                   HOUSING.

       ``(a) Right of Ownership.--A resident of a dwelling unit in 
     federally assisted rental housing who is an elderly person or 
     a person with disabilities 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 such 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 elderly person or person with 
     disabilities in connection with admission to, or continued 
     occupancy of, such housing by 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 section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez 
     National Affordable Housing Act;
       ``(F) assisted under title V of the Housing Act of 1949; or
       ``(G) insured, assisted, or held by the Secretary of 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).
       ``(3) Elderly person and person with disabilities.--The 
     terms `elderly person' and `persons with disabilities' have 
     the meanings given such terms in section 102 of the Housing 
     Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 1997.
       ``(d) Regulations.--Subsections (a) through (c) of 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).''.

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment, as modified, be considered as 
read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this is at the very least a 
sensitive amendment. I think the question is not whether or not we 
support pets. The question is: Should we pass a new Federal law that 
mandates an extension and expansion of existing law that pets be 
allowed in all subsidized housing?
  Currently the law allows pets for individuals that are senior 
citizens and individuals that are disabled citizens, and the bill 
before us expands that to every renter in every subsidized housing.
  I think the question before us is should the Federal Government pass 
a law making it less attractive for local landlords to participate in 
housing programs for low income to the extent that our mandates under 
Federal law limit the number of people willing to pursue our goal of 
providing affordable housing for individuals.
  Again, I would remind my colleagues that the bill before us expands 
current law tenfold. My proposed amendment, in effect, continues the 
existing law that pets be allowed for senior citizens and for the 
disabled. It actually expands the number of seniors and disabled that 
would be allowed to have pets. I am suggesting to my colleagues that we 
should not so drastically expand present law with strong arm mandates 
of Federal Government. Applying so many regulations and so many rules, 
discourage many local landlords from participating in a program to 
provide low-income housing. We acknowledge that it is advisable to 
allow pet

[[Page H2561]]

ownership in housing projects, but that decision deserves local input.
  In the private sector, pets are often allowed. It is reasonable to 
assume that all of those affordable housing facilities that can 
accommodate pets will accommodate pets because it is reasonable, it is 
often healthful and it is the desire of those renters to have that kind 
of freedom.
  So Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we consider passing legislation 
that leaves the law substantially as it is and does not so greatly 
expand that law with more mandates from Washington.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, we went through an extended debate on this issue last 
year. I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Lazio], the chairman, has seen the light and I think recognizes that 
the issue of whether or not we ought to be able to have pets in our 
subsidized housing or public housing is one that really ought to be 
left up to the individual resident.
  I think, after an enormously informative and entertaining debate last 
year, the Congress overwhelmingly endorsed that policy; and I think the 
good chairman has seen fit to include the expanded policy in the 
underlying bill and it is something that I believe most Members of the 
House strongly endorse.
  My understanding is that the amendment actually would, in some 
difference to the way it was described, would actually expand to public 
housing as well as section 8. Current law, obviously, is only in the 
public housing, it does not include the section 8 portion. But I do 
think that this is an issue that all families and people, whether they 
are residents of public housing, private housing, or any housing, can 
recognize some wonderful benefits of having a dog or a cat or a fish, 
everything but a cockroach, according to the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Towns].
  So I think what we ought to do here is try to make certain that we 
have an expansive policy on this issue. I do not think that there is 
any clear reasoning why we should not allow people to have whatever 
reasonable pets they want.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, it is not a question that does 
not seem to me as allowing people to have those pets. What it is is a 
mandate that every landlord has to allow regardless of the facility, 
regardless of the conditions, that those tenants have a pet if they 
want a pet. So the latitude of describing that pet is also broad.
  I would also like to call to the attention of my colleague, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], that I did not intend to 
call for a Record rollcall vote on this. I think there is a feeling 
that if you love a pet, somehow you are going to say there should be a 
Federal mandate that should require the landlords to allow pets.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I 
appreciate the gentleman's clarification on the issue. I would just 
suggest that if the landlords wanted the tenants well enough, they 
ought to be willing to accept the pets as well.
  There are provisions that allow for how those pets would be treated 
and under what terms and conditions are allowed under the legislation 
that has been proposed. I very much appreciate Chairman Lazio's efforts 
on this issue.
  I think, in particular, I want to acknowledge the efforts of the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney], who I think the Chairman 
would acknowledge was really the driving force behind a lot of these 
policy changes and someone who, although she cannot be on the floor at 
the moment, I think strongly supports the chairman's position on this 
issue. I look forward to moving on to other issues as quickly as 
possible.

                              {time}  1700

  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 just wanted to mention 
obviously this particular issue was debated thoroughly last year, and I 
know the gentleman from Massachusetts recalls my position on this, but 
the House has worked its will, and I respect that and have reflected 
both the act of last year in approving the amendment on the floor and a 
sort of sense of fairness that, if we are going to allow that in public 
housing, if we are going to allow pets in public housing, then so 
should people in section 8 struggle with that same problem.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Or solution.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Or solution.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered 
by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  The amendment, as modified, was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois

  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Amendment offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois: Page 275, after 
     line 17, insert the following:
       ``(g) Option to Exempt Applicability of Certain 
     Requirements.--If the Secretary takes possession of an agency 
     or any developments or functions of an agency pursuant to 
     subsection (b)(2) or has possession of an agency or the 
     operational responsibilities of an agency pursuant to the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before the 
     repeal under section 601(b) of this Act), the Secretary may 
     provide that, with respect to such agency (or the Secretary 
     acting in the place of such agency), the public housing 
     developments and residents of such agency, and the choice-
     based housing assistance provided by the agency and the 
     assisted families receiving such assistance, as appropriate, 
     the following provisions shall not apply:
       ``(1) Community work.--The provisions of section 105(a) 
     (relating to community work), any provisions included in a 
     community work and family self-sufficient agreement pursuant 
     to section 105(d) regarding such community work requirements, 
     and any provisions included in lease pursuant to section 
     105(e) regarding such community work requirements.
       ``(2) Target date for transition out of assisted housing.--
     The provisions of section 105(b) (relating to agreements 
     establishing target dates for transition out of assisted 
     housing) and any provisions included in a community work and 
     family self-sufficiency agreement pursuant to section 105(d) 
     regarding such target date requirements.
       ``(3) Minimum rents.--The provisions of sections 225(c) and 
     322(b)(1) (regarding minimum rental amounts and minimum 
     family contributions, respectively).''.
       Page 275, line 18, strike ``(g)'' and insert ``(h)''.

  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, today I rise on behalf of a 
constituency that during the past few weeks we have heard a great deal 
about but very little from, and as I sat watching and listening to the 
debate, as I listened to many of the myths and stereotypes of poor 
people which have sprung up because their voices often are not heard in 
the great decision and influence making centers of our society, I 
wondered why. As I sat and watched and listened, I found myself 
wondering why the gallery was not filled with poor people and with 
advocates for the poor, with lobbyists pushing their position. I 
wondered why there were not thousands of people surrounding the Capitol 
or holding meetings and rallies in public housing developments 
throughout the land.
  Then it occurred to me that public housing residents are oftentimes 
easy targets, oftentimes poor, uneducated, unemployed, unskilled, 
unorganized, unregistered, underfed, undernourished and physically 
segregated. Therefore, many of the people see no need to challenge the 
myths, stereotypes, preconceptions, misconceptions and erroneous 
notions about who they are and how they live in public housing.
  As my wife and I were having Mother's Day dinner on Sunday, we met a 
lady who was helping to serve. She was bubbling over with enthusiasm 
and told us that her daughter had just graduated from SIU, Southern 
Illinois University, with a law degree. Then she said that she lived in 
Cabrini Green Housing Development and that she was proud of all her 
children. Her son had earned a doctorate degree and was

[[Page H2562]]

teaching. Another son was working at the Post Office, and another one 
at Northwestern Hospital, all raised in Cabrini Green.
  So, Mr. Chairman, life for many residents is more than an 8-second 
sound bite on the evening news. Public housing residents do not all 
belong to gangs, are not all unemployed, do not all sit around daily 
living the good life, sleeping late, eating ham hocks, doing drugs and 
watching Oprah. They are not all lazy, shiftless and immoral. They do 
have commendable values and a sense of community.
  Having created a stereotypical, fantasized world, afflicted with 
fantasy problems, it becomes easy to design fantasy solutions if we 
have already determined that public housing residents live in public 
housing because they do not want to work and have nothing to do all 
day. Then it makes sense and is easy to prescribe a little therapeutic 
required volunteerism as a solution.
  Why then should we be concerned about the increase in numbers of 
people who are condemned to a career as a temporary worker without 
benefits or minimum wage workers, people who work every day and still 
need public help?
  If my colleagues think that public housing residents are addicted to 
free housing, then it makes perverted sense to require that they simply 
cut it out, just say no. If my colleagues feel that people who live in 
public housing are just social misfits, then they believe that they can 
be improved by getting rid of them, just put them out.
  We have a public housing system which for a variety of reasons, none 
of which are addressed in H.R. 2, we have a public housing system which 
has often failed to meet the needs of residents or the needs of our 
Nation. It has become commonplace to proclaim that the problem is with 
too much government, that government is too big, it helps the poor too 
much, that public housing residents have their hands out. When we hand 
out $150 billion in corporate welfare each year, we do not call it 
welfare or handouts. We call it stimulating the economy.
  H.R. 2 demands public service from public housing residents. Fine. 
But let us also demand some public services from those receiving 
corporate welfare. H.R. 2 demands personal responsibility contracts 
from public housing residents. Fine. But let us also demand written 
contracts detailing how those receiving corporate welfare would get out 
of the public trough. H.R. 2 demands higher minimum rents from those in 
public housing. Fine. But let us also develop minimum social paybacks 
from those receiving corporate welfare.
  Mr. Chairman, our society, our economy grows strongly in direct 
proportion to how well we involve every member in the productive 
process. Let us be fair. Let us have a uniform set of rules for 
everyone.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is designed to give public housing 
authorities the flexibility to make their own individual decisions 
about whether or not to implement the most onerous portions of H.R. 2. 
I think it is a good way to give those individuals who have been most 
abused an opportunity for redress.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I could not think of a better example of why we believe 
in community service and why we believe in the maintenance of H.R. 2 of 
mixed income and removing the work disincentives that are in current 
law of creating the incentives for entrepreneurial activity than 
Chicago itself.
  Now, it is true that throughout the entire Nation virtually every 
community, especially communities that are particularly underserved or 
that are particularly challenged by poverty, will benefit under the 
terms of H.R. 2. But in Chicago, they stand probably to gain the most.
  I just want to refer, if I can, attention and recommend to the 
Members a recent report which I would be glad to make available to any 
Member who is interested, and it is from the Institute of Metropolitan 
Affairs of Roosevelt University, and it has to do with the ranking of 
the poorest neighborhoods in America, and it is interesting because 11 
of the 15 poorest communities in the Nation are in Chicago. One might 
think if they posed that question they would find it somewhere in the 
deep South or some State that has a very low median income or some 
other place that one does not ordinarily think of when they think of 
the Gold Coast in Chicago and one of the Nation's largest cities. But 
in fact there has been exceptional failure in terms of addressing 
poverty in Chicago, and it has been a combination of things, a 
combination of looking the other way, of tolerating failure, of not 
seizing the housing authority when we should have done it over a decade 
ago, of moving slowly, of looking the other way.
  In just one of these examples, Stateway Gardens in Chicago had a 42 
percent drop in per capita income in the 10 years between 1979 and 
1989, 42 percent drop in income in what was already one of the poorest 
of the poor neighborhoods. The consequence of that has been that we 
continue to concentrate poverty, that we create environments where 
virtually everybody is unemployed, where there are no working role 
models, where we do not have any services.
  I am familiar with many of these neighborhoods in Chicago that are 
listed in the survey because I have been there, and I will tell my 
colleagues that the consequences of our policy have been that there are 
no supermarkets, that there are no banks, that there are no 
laundromats, there are no services that help keep the working poor, the 
working class in and around these communities that are under siege.

  Mr. Chairman, this House needs to come to grips with the fact that we 
have failed these residents, that we have created disincentives to work 
and to family, that we have contributed to the pathologies that have 
undermined the ability to turn these communities around, and through 
the programs that we have in H.R. 2, not the least of which is the 
community service program, where we can begin to mobilize not people 
from Washington or the State capital or from some other State to go in 
from the outside and come in and pose what they think is a right 
solution for their own communities, but we mobilize the people in their 
own backyards, these same people of low income whose talents are 
untapped, whose potential is significant to begin to transition and 
transform their own communities by working with each other, by 
marshaling their services, by having common goals, setting objectives 
and making the changes; we believe in this because we know that the end 
of poverty will not come because of the bill that we have in this House 
or in the other body, we know that it will not be something that was 
signed into law, and we know that it will not happen because of some 
leader, elected leader, in the State capital or even in the city, some 
mayor. It will happen because of the dynamic, charismatic people in and 
of the community that begin to transform their own neighborhoods, their 
own backyards, their own buildings.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the change that we are looking for, this is the 
change in H.R. 2, and it is well time that we stop tolerating the 
failure that exists in Chicago and all the other Chicagos that we have 
around the Nation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Davis].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 133, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Davis] 
will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments to title VII?
  Are there further amendments to the bill?


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 133, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
on May 8 and May 9, l997, in the following order: Amendment No. 12 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], amendment 
No. 13 offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], 
amendment No. 25 offered by the gentleman from Minnesota

[[Page H2563]]

[Mr. Vento]; also, the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Davis].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I just want to know what 
is happening with the suspension votes. Does that come before or after 
all these votes?
  The CHAIRMAN. The suspension votes will be after these votes.


        Amendment No. 12 Offered By Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on amendment No. 12 offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Kennedy] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  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''.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 162, 
noes 260, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No 119]

                               AYES--162

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

                               NOES--260

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

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Abercrombie
     Blagojevich
     Conyers
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Kingston
     Rush
     Schiff
     Skelton
     Taylor (NC)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1734

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


                          personal explanation

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I missed rollcall No. 119, due to 
airplane mechanical problems. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``no.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained on rollcall 
119. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on 
which the Chair has postponed further consideration.


        Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 13 offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.

[[Page H2564]]

  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
  Amendment 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).


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 153, 
noes 270, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 120]

                               AYES--153

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doyle
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Neal
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Yates

                               NOES--270

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

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Blagojevich
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Kingston
     Rangel
     Rush
     Schiff
     Skelton
     Taylor (NC)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1744

  Mr. DICKS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I missed rollcall No. 120 due to airplane 
mechanical problems. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, during consideration of H.R. 2 on the 
Kennedy amendment, recorded vote number 120 on Amendment #13, I 
inadvertently cast my vote against this amendment. On this particular 
vote I meant to cast a ``yes'' vote.


                 Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Vento

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. LaHood]. The unfinished business is the 
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 200, 
noes 228, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 121]

                               AYES--200

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Spratt

[[Page H2565]]


     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--228

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Hefner
     Rush
     Schiff
     Skelton
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1754

  Mr. GREEN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I request that the Chair 
could verify that the coming amendment is the one that would impose the 
same 8-hour per month voluntary work requirement imposed in H.R. 2 on 
public housing residents to investors in the section 8 project-based 
housing.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is not 
stating a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I was wondering what the 
next amendment might be.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The next amendment is the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by a voice 
vote, and the Chair is ready to call for a recorded vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have a further 
parliamentary inquiry. Is that the amendment which imposes a work 
requirement on investors in section 8 project-based housing?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a further 
parliamentary inquiry, and the gentleman knows that he was not making a 
parliamentary inquiry.


           Amendment Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 87, 
noes 341, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 122]

                                AYES--87

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Becerra
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dellums
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Markey
     Martinez
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Millender-McDonald
     Mink
     Moakley
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Scott
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--341

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)

[[Page H2566]]


     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Hefner
     Rush
     Schiff
     Skelton
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1805

  Messrs. BERRY, KILDEE, and FARR of California changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. DAVIS of Illinois

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 145, 
noes 282, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 123]

                               AYES--145

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Northup
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--282

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Gekas
     Hefner
     Rush
     Schiff
     Skelton
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1813

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that this body will be gravely disappointed to 
know that this bill is nearing conclusion. I understand that all titles 
have been closed, is that correct, Mr. Chairman, if that is appropriate 
to direct that question to the Chair?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Title VII is open at any 
point.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I would ask that after the close of title VII 
that I be permitted to offer a unanimous-consent request pursuant to 
the discussions that we have had with the gentleman from Massachusetts 
concerning time limitations. I will be making a motion to rise at the 
end of this, and we will probably resume again on Thursday to take up 
the substitute and to take up final passage. At that time I understand 
that there has been some agreement on time limitations involving the 
Kennedy substitute. The suggestion would be that there would be 60 
minutes for the substitute, 30 minutes controlled by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], 30 minutes controlled by myself, and I 
just wanted to inquire if that was the understanding of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and if he would be concurring with 
that time limitation.
  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 had spoken with the 
chairman's staff and we had indicated that because of the large number 
of speakers and because this bill has been so much fun for the last 3 
weeks that we would not necessarily want to cut the debate short on 
Thursday morning, but we are looking forward to perhaps finding a way 
to achieve a limitation on

[[Page H2567]]

Thursday. But I would rather wait until then to determine the level of 
intensity on our side.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. If I could just reclaim my time, is the 
gentleman saying that an hour would not be an appropriate amount of 
time to debate the substitute?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I am hopeful we can reach agreement on 
an hour, but I would like to reserve that right until Thursday and make 
that determination at that time.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support for H.R. 2, the 
Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act. As a cosponsor of this 
important legislation I believe that it will go a long way toward 
reforming our current public housing system. I am particularly 
enthusiastic about Title IV, the Home Rule Flexible Grant Option, 
portion of the overall legislation. The provisions included in Title IV 
would provide local government leaders with the flexibility to 
implement new locally developed proposals for meeting the specific 
housing needs of their communities.
  Whereas under our current system Public Housing Authorities 
administer all aspects of sometimes highly regulated Federal housing 
programs, this new grant would give interested localities the 
flexibility to implement new innovative programs targeted to meet the 
housing needs of their own citizens.
  In the city of Lima, a town in my district, a situation has developed 
recently that has divided local housing authorities and local 
government leaders. The situation began when the city's Public Housing 
Authority went forward with plans to build 28 scattered-site low-income 
public housing units. With city officials contending that these units 
are not scattered, and in fact concentrated in one particular area of 
the city, they filed suit contending that the Public Housing Authority 
broke Ohio law by not presenting the project to the Lima Planning 
Commission before going ahead with construction. In an effort to bring 
both sides together and resolve their differences, at my request, a 
meeting was set up between HUD officials and officials from the Lima 
City Council. In fact, a public meeting was also held on this issue, 
again with HUD officials being present. While HUD officials soon agreed 
with city officials that indeed they had some legitimate concerns on 
the 28 scattered-site housing units being congested in one area, 
ultimately no concrete resolutions came out of these meetings.
  Unfortunately, the situation worsened. With no resolution from the 
meetings, and with the city proceeding with the lawsuit, city officials 
soon found themselves receiving a letter of warning from HUD. The 
letter stated that as a result of the city's lawsuit against the Public 
Housing Authority, the department would therefore be withholding funds 
for both the city's Community Development Block Grant and HOME 
Programs.
  Clearly this situation should never have developed to the point where 
HUD bureaucrats would feel the need to threaten to withhold funds for 
programs that have absolutely nothing to do with the city's initial 
lawsuit. In fact, had all sides sat down and actually addressed each 
others concerns in the first place, all of this could have possibly 
been resolved.
  It is this exact situation that Title IV of H.R. 2 aims to address. 
By encouraging city officials and Public Housing Authorities to work 
together to meet the housing needs of their community, conflicts such 
as the one taking place in Lima today can be averted. While both sides 
in this dispute clearly have the best interests of community in mind, 
it is the current housing program framework itself that has pitted both 
sides against one another. It is clear to me that the Home Rule 
Flexible Grant Option provisions in this bill would help to encourage 
greater cooperation between Public Housing Authorities and local 
elected officials.
  As one who has witnessed first-hand the negative consequences of 
having local Public Housing Authorities and local government leaders 
work at odds with each other, it is clear to me that this new approach 
is needed. For these reasons I urge all Members to support passage of 
the 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. 
Kolbe] having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 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.

                          ____________________