[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 14, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2619-H2647]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           HOUSING OPPORTUNITY AND RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1997

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

                              {time}  1332


                     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. Riggs 
(Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Tuesday, May 13, 1997, the amendment by the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Davis] had been disposed of and title VII was open for amendment 
at any point.
  Are there further amendments to title VII?
  Are there further amendments to the end of the bill?


   Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. KENNEDY of 
                             Massachusetts

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Kennedy of Massachusetts:
       Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Public 
     Housing Management Reform Act of 1997''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows--
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.

                TITLE I--PUBLIC HOUSING AND RENT REFORMS

Sec. 101. Establishment of capital and operating funds.
Sec. 102. Determination of rental amounts for residents.
Sec. 103. Minimum rents for public housing and section 8.
Sec. 104. Public housing ceiling rents.
Sec. 105. Disallowance of earned income from public housing and section 
              8 rent and family contribution determinations.
Sec. 106. Public housing homeownership.
Sec. 107. Public housing agency plan.
Sec. 108. PHMAP indicators for small PHA's.
Sec. 109. PHMAP self-sufficiency indicator.
Sec. 110. Expansion of powers for dealing with PHA's.
Sec. 111. Public housing site-based waiting lists.
Sec. 112. Community service requirements for public housing and section 
              8 programs.
Sec. 113. Comprehensive improvement assistance program streamlining.
Sec. 114. Flexibility for PHA funding.
Sec. 115. Replacement housing resources.
Sec. 116. Repeal of one-for-one replacement housing requirement.
Sec. 117. Demolition, site revitalization, replacement housing, and 
              tenant-based assistance grants for developments.
Sec. 118. Performance evaluation board.
Sec. 119. Economic development and supportive services for public 
              housing residents.

[[Page H2620]]

Sec. 120. Penalty for slow expenditure of modernization funds.
Sec. 121. Designation of PHA's as troubled.
Sec. 122. Volunteer services under the 1937 Act.
Sec. 123. Authorization of appropriations for operation safe home 
              program.

                    TITLE II--SECTION 8 STREAMLINING

Sec. 201. Permanent repeal of Federal preferences.
Sec. 202. Income targeting for public housing and section 8 programs.
Sec. 203. Merger of tenant-based assistance programs.
Sec. 204. Section 8 administrative fees.
Sec. 205. Section 8 homeownership.
Sec. 206. Welfare to work certificates.
Sec. 207. Effect of failure to comply with public assistance 
              requirements.
Sec. 208. Streamlining section 8 tenant-based assistance.
Sec. 209. Nondiscrimination against certificate and voucher holders.
Sec. 210. Recapture and reuse of ACC project reserves under tenant-
              based assistance program.
Sec. 211. Expanding the coverage of the Public and Assisted Housing 
              Drug Elimination Act of 1990.
Sec. 212. Study regarding rental assistance.

     TITLE III--``ONE-STRIKE AND YOU'RE OUT'' OCCUPANCY PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Screening of applicants.
Sec. 302. Termination of tenancy and assistance.
Sec. 303. Lease requirements.
Sec. 304. Availability of criminal records for public housing tenant 
              screening and eviction.
Sec. 305. Definitions.
Sec. 306. Conforming amendments.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) we have a shared national interest in creating safe, 
     decent and affordable housing because, for all Americans, 
     housing is an essential building block toward holding a job, 
     getting an education, participating in the community, and 
     helping fulfill our national goals;
       (2) the American people recognized this shared national 
     interest in 1937, when we created a public housing program 
     dedicated to meeting these needs while creating more hope and 
     opportunity for the American people;
       (3) for 60 years America's public housing system has 
     provided safe, decent, and affordable housing for millions of 
     low-income families, who have used public housing as a 
     stepping stone toward greater stability, independence, and 
     homeownership;
       (4) today, more than 3,300 local public housing agencies--
     95 percent of all housing agencies throughout America--are 
     providing a good place for families to live and fulfilling 
     their historic mission;
       (5) yet, for all our progress as a nation, today, only one 
     out of four Americans who needs housing assistance receives 
     it;
       (6) at the same time, approximately 15 percent of the 
     people who live in public housing nationwide live in housing 
     with management designated as ``troubled'';
       (7) for numerous developments at these troubled public 
     housing agencies and elsewhere, families face a overwhelming 
     mix of crime, drug trafficking, unemployment, and despair, 
     where there is little hope for a better future or a better 
     life;
       (8) the past 60 years have resulted in a system where 
     outdated rules and excessive government regulation are 
     limiting our ability to propose innovative solutions and 
     solve problems, not only at the relatively few local public 
     housing agencies designated as troubled, but at the 3,300 
     that are working well;
       (9) obstacles faced by those agencies that are working 
     well--multiple reports and cumbersome regulations--make a 
     compelling case for deregulation and for concentration by the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development on fulfillment of 
     the program's basic mission;
       (10) all told, the Department has drifted from its original 
     mission, creating bureaucratic processes that encumber the 
     people and organizations it is supposed to serve;
       (11) under a framework enacted by Congress, the Department 
     has begun major reforms to address these problems, with 
     dramatic results;
       (12) public housing agencies have begun to demolish and 
     replace the worst public housing, reduce crime, promote 
     resident self-sufficiency, upgrade management, and end the 
     isolation of public housing developments from the working 
     world;
       (13) the Department has also recognized that for public 
     housing to work better, the Department needs to work better, 
     and has begun a major overhaul of its organization, 
     streamlining operations, improving management, building 
     stronger partnerships with state and local agencies and 
     improving its ability to take enforcement actions where 
     necessary to assure that its programs serve their intended 
     purposes; and
       (14) for these dramatic reforms to succeed, permanent 
     legislation is now needed to continue the transformation of 
     public housing agencies, strip away outdated rules, provide 
     necessary enforcement tools, and empower the Department and 
     local agencies to meet the needs of America's families.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act--
       (1) to completely overhaul the framework and rules that 
     were put in place to govern public housing 60 years ago;
       (2) to revolutionize the way public housing serves its 
     clients, fits in the community, builds opportunity, and 
     prepares families for a better life;
       (3) to reaffirm America's historic commitment to safe, 
     decent, and affordable housing and to remove the obstacles to 
     meeting that goal;
       (4) to continue the complete and total overhaul of 
     management of the Department;
       (5) to dramatically deregulate and reorganize the Federal 
     Government's management and oversight of America's public 
     housing;
       (6) to ensure that local public housing agencies spend more 
     time delivering vital services to residents and less time 
     complying with unessential regulations or filing unessential 
     reports;
       (7) to achieve greater accountability of taxpayer funds by 
     empowering the Federal Government to take firmer, quicker, 
     and more effective actions to improve the management of 
     troubled local housing authorities and to crack down on poor 
     performance;
       (8) to preserve public housing as a rental resource for 
     low-income Americans, while breaking down the extreme social 
     isolation of public housing from mainstream America;
       (9) to provide for revitalization of severely distressed 
     public housing, or its replacement with replacement housing 
     or tenant-based assistance;
       (10) to integrate public housing reform with welfare reform 
     so that welfare recipients--many of whom are public housing 
     residents--can better chart a path to independence and self-
     sufficiency;
       (11) to anchor in a permanent statute needed changes that 
     will result in the continued transformation of the public 
     housing and tenant-based assistance programs--including 
     deregulating well-performing housing agencies, ensuring 
     accountability to the public, providing sanctions for poor 
     performers, and providing additional management tools;
       (12) to streamline and simplify the tenant-based Section 8 
     program and to make this program workable for providing 
     homeownership; and
       (13) through these comprehensive measures, to reform the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937 and the programs 
     thereunder.
                TITLE I--PUBLIC HOUSING AND RENT REFORMS

     SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF CAPITAL AND OPERATING FUNDS.

       (a) Capital Fund.--Section 14(a) of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (5) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (E), respectively;
       (2) by inserting the paragraph designation ``(2)'' before 
     ``It is the purpose''; and
       (3) by inserting the following new paragraph (1) 
     immediately after the subsection designation ``(a)'':
       ``(1) The Secretary shall establish a Capital Fund under 
     this section for the purpose of making assistance available 
     to public housing agencies in accordance with this 
     section.''.
       (b) Operating Fund.--Section 9(a) of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 is amended by striking ``Sec. 9. 
     (a)(1)(A) In addition to'' and inserting the following:
       ``Sec. 9. (a) The Secretary shall establish an Operating 
     Fund under this section for the purpose of making assistance 
     available to public housing agencies in accordance with this 
     section.
       ``(1)(A) In addition to''.

     SEC. 102. DETERMINATION OF RENTAL AMOUNTS FOR RESIDENTS OF 
                   PUBLIC HOUSING.

       (a) In General.--Section 3 of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by revising subparagraph (A) to 
     read as follows:
       ``(A)(i) if the family is assisted under section 8 of this 
     Act, 30 percent of the family's monthly adjusted income; or
       ``(ii) if the family resides in public housing, an amount 
     established by the public housing agency not to exceed 30 
     percent of the family's monthly adjusted income;''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(5)--
       (A) after the semicolon following subparagraph (F), by 
     inserting ``and'';
       (B) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting a period; and
       (C) by striking subparagraph (H).
       (b) Revised Operating Subsidy Formula.--The Secretary, in 
     consultation with interested parties, shall establish a 
     revised formula for allocating operating assistance under 
     section 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, which 
     formula may include such factors as:
       (1) standards for the costs of operation and reasonable 
     projections of income, taking into account the character and 
     location of the public housing project and characteristics of 
     the families served, or the costs of providing comparable 
     services as determined with criteria or a formula 
     representing the operations of a prototype well-managed 
     public housing project;
       (2) the number of public housing dwelling units owned and 
     operated by the public housing agency, the percentage of 
     those units that are occupied by very low-income families, 
     and, if applicable, the reduction in the number of public 
     housing units as a result of any conversion to a system of 
     tenant-based assistance;
       (3) the degree of household poverty served by a public 
     housing agency;
       (4) the extent to which the public housing agency provides 
     programs and activities designed to promote the economic 
     self-sufficiency and management skills of public housing 
     tenants;

[[Page H2621]]

       (5) the number of dwelling units owned and operated by the 
     public housing agency that are chronically vacant and the 
     amount of assistance appropriate for those units;
       (6) the costs of the public housing agency associated with 
     anti-crime and anti-drug activities, including the costs of 
     providing adequate security for public housing tenants;
       (7) the ability of the public housing agency to effectively 
     administer the Operating Fund distribution of the public 
     housing agency;
       (8) incentives to public housing agencies for good 
     management;
       (9) standards for the costs of operation of assisted 
     housing compared to unassisted housing; and
       (10) an incentive to encourage public housing agencies to 
     increase nonrental income and to increase rental income 
     attributable to their units by encouraging occupancy by 
     families whose incomes have increase while in occupancy and 
     newly admitted families; such incentive shall provide that 
     the agency shall derive the full benefit of any increase in 
     nonrental or rental income, and such increase shall not 
     result in a decrease in amounts provided to the agency under 
     this title; in addition, an agency shall be permitted to 
     retain, from each fiscal year, the full benefit of such an 
     increase in nonrental or rental income, except to the extent 
     that such benefit exceeds (A) 100 percent of the total amount 
     of the operating amounts for which the agency is eligible 
     under this section, and (B) the maximum balance permitted for 
     the agency's operating reserve under this section and any 
     regulations issued under this section.
       (c) Transition Provision.--Prior to the establishment and 
     implementation of an operating subsidy formula under 
     subsection (b), if a public housing agency establishes a 
     rental amount that is less than 30 percent of the family's 
     monthly adjusted income pursuant to section 3(a)(1)(A)(ii) of 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended by 
     subsection (a)(1), the Secretary shall not take into account 
     any reduction of or increase in the public housing agency's 
     per unit dwelling rental income resulting from the use of 
     such rental amount when calculating the contributions under 
     section 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 for the 
     public housing agency for the operation of the public 
     housing.

     SEC. 103. MINIMUM RENTS FOR PUBLIC HOUSING AND SECTION 8 
                   PROGRAMS.

       The second sentence of section 3(a)(1) of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 is amended--
       (1) at the end of subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'';
       (2) in subsection (C), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; or''; and
       (3) by inserting the following at the end:
       ``(D) $25.
     Where establishing the rent or family contribution based on 
     subparagraph (D) would otherwise result in undue hardship (as 
     defined by the Secretary or the public housing agency) for 
     one or more categories of affected families described in the 
     next sentence, the Secretary or the public housing agency may 
     exempt one or more such categories from the requirements of 
     this paragraph and may require a lower minimum monthly rental 
     contribution for one or more such categories. The categories 
     of families described in this sentence shall include families 
     subject to situations in which (i) the family has lost 
     eligibility for or is awaiting an eligibility determination 
     for a Federal, State, or local assistance program; (ii) the 
     family would be evicted as a result of the imposition of the 
     minimum rent requirement under subsection (c); (iii) the 
     income of the family has decreased because of changed 
     circumstance, including loss of employment; and (iv) a death 
     in the family has occurred; and other families subject to 
     such situations as may be determined by the Secretary or the 
     agency. Where the rent or contribution of a family would 
     otherwise be based on subparagraph (D) and a member of the 
     family is an immigrant lawfully admitted for permanent 
     residence (as those terms are defined in sections 101(a)(15) 
     and 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101(a)(15) and 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20)) who would have 
     been entitled to public benefits but for title IV of the 
     Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 
     Act of 1996, notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     section, a public housing agency shall exempt the family from 
     the requirements of this paragraph.''.

     SEC. 104. PUBLIC HOUSING CEILING RENTS.

       (a) Section 3(a)(2)(A) of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937, as amended by section 402(b)(1) of The Balanced Budget 
     Downpayment Act, I, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) adopt ceiling rents that reflect the reasonable 
     market value of the housing, but that are not less than--
       ``(i) for housing other than housing predominantly for 
     elderly or disabled families (or both), 75 percent of the 
     monthly cost to operate the housing of the agency;
       ``(ii) for housing predominantly for elderly or disabled 
     families (or both), 100 percent of the monthly cost to 
     operate the housing of the agency; and
       ``(iii) the monthly cost to make a deposit to a replacement 
     reserve (in the sole discretion of the public housing 
     agency); and''.
       (b) Notwithstanding section 402(f) of The Balanced Budget 
     Downpayment Act, I, the amendments made by section 402(b) of 
     that Act shall remain in effect after fiscal year 1997.

     SEC. 105. DISALLOWANCE OF EARNED INCOME FROM PUBLIC HOUSING 
                   AND SECTION 8 RENT AND FAMILY CONTRIBUTION 
                   DETERMINATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 3 of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 is amended--
       (1) by striking the undesignated paragraph at the end of 
     subsection (c)(3) (as added by section 515(b) of Public Law 
     101-625); and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Disallowance of Earned Income From Public Housing and 
     Section 8 Rent and Family Contribution Determinations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the rent payable under subsection (a) by, the family 
     contribution determined in accordance with subsection (a) 
     for, a family--
       ``(A) that--
       ``(i) occupies a unit in a public housing project; or
       ``(ii) receives assistance under section 8; and
       ``(B) whose income increases as a result of employment of a 
     member of the family who was previously unemployed for one or 
     more years (including a family whose income increases as a 
     result of the participation of a family member in any family 
     self-sufficiency or other job training program);may not be 
     increased as a result of the increased income due to such 
     employment during the 18-month period beginning on the date 
     on which the employment is commenced.
       ``(2) Phase-in of rate increases.--After the expiration of 
     the 18-month period referred to in paragraph (1), rent 
     increases due to the continued employment of the family 
     member described in paragraph (1)(b) shall be phased in over 
     a subsequent 3-year period.
       ``(3) Overall limitation.--Rent payable under subsection 
     (a) shall not exceed the amount determined under subsection 
     (a).''.
       (b) Applicability of Amendment.--
       (1) Public housing.--Notwithstanding the amendment made by 
     subsection (a), any tenant of public housing participating in 
     the program under the authority contained in the undesignated 
     paragraph at the end of the section 3(c)(3) of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937, as that paragraph existed on the 
     day before the date of enactment this Act, shall be governed 
     by that authority after that date.
       (2) Section 8.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
     apply to tenant-based assistance provided by a public housing 
     agency under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937 on and after October 1, 1998, but shall apply only to 
     the extent approved in appropriation Acts.

     SEC. 106. PUBLIC HOUSING HOMEOWNERSHIP.

       Section 5(h) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 is 
     amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``lower income 
     tenants,'' and inserting the following: ``low-income tenants, 
     or to any organization serving as a conduit for sales to such 
     tenants,''; and
       (2) by adding the following two sentences at the end: ``In 
     the case of purchase by an entity that is an organization 
     serving as a conduit for sales to such tenants, the entity 
     shall sell the units to low-income families within five years 
     from the date of its acquisition of the units. The entity 
     shall use any net proceeds from the resale and from managing 
     the units, as determined in accordance with guidelines of the 
     Secretary, for housing purposes, such as funding resident 
     organizations and reserves for capital replacements.''.

     SEC. 107. PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY PLAN.

       The United States Housing Act of 1937 is amended by 
     inserting after section 5 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 5A. PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY PLAN.

       ``(a) Contents of Plan.--(1) Each public housing agency 
     shall submit to the Secretary a public housing agency plan 
     that shall consist of the following parts, as applicable--
       ``(A) A statement of the housing needs of low-income and 
     very low-income families residing in the community served by 
     the public housing agency, and of other low-income families 
     on the waiting list of the agency (including the housing 
     needs of elderly families and disabled families), and the 
     means by which the agency intends, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, to address such needs.
       ``(B) The procedures for outreach efforts (including 
     efforts that are planned and that have been executed) to 
     homeless families and to entities providing assistance to 
     homeless families, in the jurisdiction of the public housing 
     agency.
       ``(C) For assistance under section 14, a 5-year 
     comprehensive plan, as described in section 14(e)(1).
       ``(D) For assistance under section 14, the annual 
     statement, as required under section 14(e)(3).
       ``(E) An annual description of the public housing agency's 
     plans for the following activities--
       ``(i) demolition and disposition under section 18;
       ``(ii) homeownership under section 5(h); and
       ``(iii) designated housing under section 7.
       ``(F) An annual submission by the public housing agency 
     consisting of the following information--
       ``(i) tenant selection admission and assignment policies, 
     including any admission preferences;
       ``(ii) rent policies, including income and rent calculation 
     methodology, minimum rents, ceiling rents, and income 
     exclusions, disregards, or deductions;

[[Page H2622]]

       ``(iii) any cooperation agreements between the public 
     housing agency and State welfare and employment agencies to 
     target services to public housing residents (public housing 
     agencies shall use best efforts to enter into such 
     agreements); and
       ``(iv) anti-crime and security plans, including--
       ``(I) a strategic plan for addressing crime on or affecting 
     the sites owned by the agency, which shall provide, on a 
     development-by-development basis, for measures to ensure the 
     safety of public housing residents, shall be established, 
     with respect to each development, in consultation with the 
     police officer or officers in command for the precinct in 
     which the development is located, shall describe the need for 
     measures to ensure the safety of public housing residents and 
     for crime prevention measures, describe any such activities 
     conducted, or to be conducted, by the agency, and provide for 
     coordination between the public housing agency and the 
     appropriate police precincts for carrying out such measures 
     and activities;
       ``(II) a statement of activities in furtherance of the 
     strategic plan to be carried out with assistance under the 
     Public and Assisted Housing Drug Elimination Act of 1990;
       ``(III) performance criteria regrading the effective use of 
     such assistance; and
       ``(IV) any plans for the provision of anti-crime assistance 
     to be provided by the local government in addition to the 
     assistance otherwise required to be provided by the agreement 
     for local cooperation under section 5(e)(2) or other 
     applicable law.
     Where a public housing agency has no changes to report in any 
     of the information required under this subparagraph since the 
     previous annual submission, the public agency shall only 
     state in its annual submission that it has made no changes. 
     If the Secretary determines, at any time, that the security 
     needs of a development are not being adequately addressed by 
     the strategic crime plan for the agency under clause (iv)(I), 
     or that the local police precinct is not complying with the 
     plan, the Secretary may mediate between the public housing 
     agency and the local precinct to resolve any issues of 
     conflict. If after such mediation has occurred and the 
     Secretary determines that the security needs of the 
     development are not adequately addressed, the Secretary may 
     require the public housing agency to submit an amended plan.
       ``(G) Other appropriate information that the Secretary 
     requires for each public housing agency that is--
       ``(i) at risk of being designated as troubled under section 
     6(j); or
       ``(ii) designated as troubled under section 6(j).
       ``(H) Other information required by the Secretary in 
     connection with the provision of assistance under section 9.
       ``(I) An annual certification by the public housing agency 
     that it has met the citizen participation requirements under 
     subsection (b).
       ``(J) An annual certification by the public housing agency 
     that it will carry out the public housing agency plan in 
     conformity with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the 
     Fair Housing Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 
     1973, and title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 
     1990, and will affirmatively further fair housing.
       ``(K) An annual certification by the public housing agency 
     that the public housing agency plan is consistent with the 
     approved Consolidated Plan for the locality.
       ``(2) The Secretary may provide for more frequent 
     submissions where the public housing agency proposes to amend 
     any parts of the public housing agency plan.
       ``(b) Citizen Participation Requirements.--In developing 
     the public housing agency plan under subsection (a), each 
     public housing agency shall consult with appropriate local 
     government officials and with tenants of the housing 
     projects, which shall include at least one public hearing 
     that shall be held prior to the adoption of the plan, and 
     afford tenants and interested parties an opportunity to 
     summarize their priorities and concerns, to ensure their due 
     consideration in the planning process of the public housing 
     agency.
       ``(c) Performance Reports.--The Secretary shall require the 
     public housing agency to submit any information that the 
     Secretary determines is appropriate or necessary to assess 
     the management performance of public housing agencies and 
     resident management corporations under section 6(j) and to 
     monitor assistance provided under this Act. To the maximum 
     extent feasible, the Secretary shall require such information 
     in one report, as part of the annual submission of the agency 
     under subsection (a).
       ``(d) Standards for Determination of Noncompliance.--After 
     submission by a public housing agency of a public housing 
     agency plan under subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     determine whether the plan complies with the requirements 
     under this section. The Secretary may determine that a plan 
     does not comply with the requirements under this section only 
     if--
       ``(1) the plan is incomplete in significant matters 
     required under this section;
       ``(2) there is evidence available to the Secretary that 
     challenges, in a substantial manner, any information provided 
     in the plan;
       ``(3) the Secretary determines that the plan does not 
     comply with Federal law or violates the purposes of this Act 
     because it fails to provide housing that will be viable on a 
     long-term basis at a reasonable cost;
       ``(4) the plan plainly fails to adequately identify the 
     needs of low-income families for housing assistance in the 
     jurisdiction of the agency;
       ``(5) the plan plainly fails to adequately identify the 
     capital improvement needs for public housing developments in 
     the jurisdiction of the agency;
       ``(6) the activities identified in the plan are plainly 
     inappropriate to address the needs identified in the plan; or
       ``(7) the plan is inconsistent with the requirements of 
     this Act.
       ``(e) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary may waive, or 
     specify alternative requirements for, any requirements under 
     this section that the Secretary determines are burdensome or 
     unnecessary for public housing agencies that only administer 
     tenant-based assistance and do not own or operate public 
     housing.''.

     SEC. 108. PHMAP INDICATORS FOR SMALL PHA'S.

       Section 6(j)(1) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 is 
     amended by--
       (1) redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (I) as clauses 
     (i) through (ix);
       (2) redesignating clauses (1), (2), and (3) in clause (ix), 
     as redesignated by paragraph (1), as subclauses (I), (II), 
     and (III) respectively;
       (3) in the fourth sentence, inserting immediately before 
     clause (i), as redesignated, the following new subparagraph:
       ``(A) For public housing agencies that own or operate 250 
     or more public housing dwelling units--''; and
       (4) adding the following new subparagraph at the end:
       ``(B) For public housing agencies that own and operate 
     fewer than 250 public housing dwelling units--
       ``(i) The number and percentage of vacancies within an 
     agency's inventory, including the progress that an agency has 
     made within the previous 3 years to reduce such vacancies.
       ``(ii) The percentage of rents uncollected.
       ``(iii) The ability of the agency to produce and use 
     accurate and timely records of monthly income and expenses 
     and to maintain at least a 3-month reserve.
       ``(iv) The annual inspection of occupied units and the 
     agency's ability to respond to maintenance work orders.
       ``(v) Any one additional factor that the Secretary may 
     determine to be appropriate.''.

     SEC. 109. PHMAP SELF-SUFFICIENCY INDICATOR.

       Section 6(j)(1)(A) of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937, as amended by section 108 of this Act, is amended at 
     the end by adding the following new clause:
       ``(x) The extent to which the agency coordinates and 
     promotes participation by families in programs that assist 
     them to achieve self-sufficiency.''.

     SEC. 110. EXPANSION OF POWERS FOR DEALING WITH PHA'S IN 
                   SUBSTANTIAL DEFAULT.

       (a) In General.--Section 6(j)(3) of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by amending clause (i) to read as follows:
       ``(i) solicit competitive proposals from other public 
     housing agencies and private housing management agents which, 
     in the discretion of the Secretary, may be selected by 
     existing public housing residents through administrative 
     procedures established by the Secretary; if appropriate, 
     these proposals shall provide for such agents to manage all, 
     or part, of the housing administered by the public housing 
     agency or all or part of the other programs of the agency;'';
       (B) by redesignating clause (iv) as clause (v) and amending 
     it to read as follows:
       ``(v) require the agency to make other arrangements 
     acceptable to the Secretary and in the best interests of the 
     public housing residents and families assisted under section 
     8 for managing all, or part, of the public housing 
     administered by the agency or of the programs of the 
     agency.''; and
       (C) by inserting a new clause (iv) after clause (iii) to 
     read as follows:
       ``(iv) take possession of all or part of the public housing 
     agency, including all or part of any project or program of 
     the agency, including any project or program under any other 
     provision of this title; and''; and
       (2) by striking subparagraphs (B) through (D) and inserting 
     in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(B)(i) If a public housing agency is identified as 
     troubled under this subsection, the Secretary shall notify 
     the agency of the troubled status of the agency.
       ``(ii) Upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning 
     on the later of the date on which the agency receives notice 
     from the Secretary of the troubled status of the agency under 
     clause (i) and the date of enactment of the Public Housing 
     Management Reform Act of 1997, the Secretary shall--
       ``(I) in the case of a troubled public housing agency with 
     1,250 or more units, petition for the appointment of a 
     receiver pursuant to subparagraph (A)(ii); or
       ``(II) in the case of a troubled public housing agency with 
     fewer than 1,250 units, either--
       ``(aa) petition for the appointment of a receiver pursuant 
     to subparagraph (A)(ii); or
       ``(bb) appoint, on a competitive or noncompetitive basis, 
     an individual or entity as an administrative receiver to 
     assume the responsibilities of the Secretary for the 
     administration of all or part of the public housing agency 
     (including all or part of any project

[[Page H2623]]

     or program of the agency), provided the Secretary has taken 
     possession of all or part of the public housing agency 
     (including all or part of any project or program of the 
     agency) pursuant to subparagraph (A)(iv).
       ``(C) If a receiver is appointed pursuant to subparagraph 
     (A)(ii), in addition to the powers accorded by the court 
     appointing the receiver, the receiver--
       ``(i) may abrogate any contract to which the United States 
     or an agency of the United States is not a party that, in the 
     receiver's written determination (which shall include the 
     basis for such determination), substantially impedes 
     correction of the substantial default, but only after the 
     receiver determines that reasonable efforts to renegotiate 
     such contract have failed;
       ``(ii) may demolish and dispose of all or part of the 
     assets of the public housing agency (including all or part of 
     any project of the agency) in accordance with section 18, 
     including disposition by transfer of properties to resident-
     supported nonprofit entities;
       ``(iii) if determined to be appropriate by the Secretary, 
     may seek the establishment, as permitted by applicable State 
     and local law, of one or more new public housing agencies;
       ``(iv) if determined to be appropriate by the Secretary, 
     may seek consolidation of all or part of the agency 
     (including all or part of any project or program of the 
     agency), as permitted by applicable State and local laws, 
     into other well-managed public housing agencies with the 
     consent of such well-managed agencies; and
       ``(v) shall not be required to comply with any State or 
     local law relating to civil service requirements, employee 
     rights (except civil rights), procurement, or financial or 
     administrative controls that, in the receiver's written 
     determination (which shall include the basis for such 
     determination), substantially impedes correction of the 
     substantial default.
       ``(D)(i) If the Secretary takes possession of all or part 
     of the public housing agency, including all or part of any 
     project or program of the agency, pursuant to subparagraph 
     (A)(iv), the Secretary--
       ``(I) may abrogate any contract to which the United States 
     or an agency of the United States is not a party that, in the 
     written determination of the Secretary (which shall include 
     the basis for such determination), substantially impedes 
     correction of the substantial default, but only after the 
     Secretary determines that reasonable efforts to renegotiate 
     such contract have failed;
       ``(II) may demolish and dispose of all or part of the 
     assets of the public housing agency (including all or part of 
     any project of the agency) in accordance with section 18, 
     including disposition by transfer of properties to resident-
     supported nonprofit entities;
       ``(III) may seek the establishment, as permitted by 
     applicable State and local law, of one or more new public 
     housing agencies;
       ``(IV) may seek consolidation of all or part of the agency 
     (including all or part of any project or program of the 
     agency), as permitted by applicable State and local laws, 
     into other well-managed public housing agencies with the 
     consent of such well-managed agencies;
       ``(V) shall not be required to comply with any State or 
     local law relating to civil service requirements, employee 
     rights (except civil rights), procurement, or financial or 
     administrative controls that, in the Secretary's written 
     determination (which shall include the basis for such 
     determination), substantially impedes correction of the 
     substantial default; and
       ``(VI) shall, without any action by a district court of the 
     United States, have such additional authority as a district 
     court of the United States would have the authority to confer 
     upon a receiver to achieve the purposes of the receivership.
       ``(ii) If the Secretary, pursuant to subparagraph 
     (B)(ii)(II)(bb), appoints an administrative receiver to 
     assume the responsibilities of the Secretary for the 
     administration of all or part of the public housing agency 
     (including all or part of any project or program of the 
     agency), the Secretary may delegate to the administrative 
     receiver any or all of the powers given the Secretary by this 
     subparagraph, as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
       ``(iii) Regardless of any delegation under this 
     subparagraph, an administrative receiver may not seek the 
     establishment of one or more new public housing agencies 
     pursuant to clause (i)(III) or the consolidation of all or 
     part of an agency into other well-managed agencies pursuant 
     to clause (i)(IV), unless the Secretary first approves an 
     application by the administrative receiver to authorize such 
     action.
       ``(E) The Secretary may make available to receivers and 
     other entities selected or appointed pursuant to this 
     paragraph such assistance as the Secretary determines in the 
     discretion of the Secretary is necessary and available to 
     remedy the substantial deterioration of living conditions in 
     individual public housing developments or other related 
     emergencies that endanger the health, safety, and welfare of 
     public housing residents or families assisted under section 
     8. A decision made by the Secretary under this paragraph is 
     not subject to review in any court of the United States, or 
     in any court of any State, territory, or possession of the 
     United States.
       ``(F) In any proceeding under subparagraph (A)(ii), upon a 
     determination that a substantial default has occurred, and 
     without regard to the availability of alternative remedies, 
     the court shall appoint a receiver to conduct the affairs of 
     all or part of the public housing agency in a manner 
     consistent with this Act and in accordance with such further 
     terms and conditions as the court may provide. The receiver 
     appointed may be another public housing agency, a private 
     management corporation, or any other person or appropriate 
     entity. The court shall have power to grant appropriate 
     temporary or preliminary relief pending final disposition of 
     the petition by the Secretary.
       ``(G) The appointment of a receiver pursuant to this 
     paragraph may be terminated, upon the petition of any party, 
     when the court determines that all defaults have been cured 
     or the public housing agency is capable again of discharging 
     its duties.
       ``(H) If the Secretary (or an administrative receiver 
     appointed by the Secretary) takes possession of a public 
     housing agency (including all or part of any project or 
     program of the agency), or if a receiver is appointed by a 
     court, the Secretary or receiver shall be deemed to be acting 
     not in the official capacity of that person or entity, but 
     rather in the capacity of the public housing agency, and any 
     liability incurred, regardless of whether the incident giving 
     rise to that liability occurred while the Secretary or 
     receiver was in possession of all or part of the public 
     housing agency (including all or part of any project or 
     program of the agency), shall be the liability of the public 
     housing agency.''.
       (b) Effectiveness.--The provisions of, and duties and 
     authorities conferred or confirmed by, subsection (a) shall 
     apply with respect to actions taken before, on, or after the 
     effective date of this Act and shall apply to any receivers 
     appointed for a public housing agency before the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (c) Technical Correction Regarding Applicability to Section 
     8.--Section 8(h) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 is 
     amended by inserting after ``6'' the following: ``(except as 
     provided in section 6(j)(3))''.

     SEC. 111. PUBLIC HOUSING SITE-BASED WAITING LISTS.

       Section 6 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as 
     amended by section 306(a)(2) of this Act, is amended by 
     inserting the following new subsection at the end:
       ``(q) A public housing agency may establish, in accordance 
     with guidelines established by the Secretary, procedures for 
     maintaining waiting lists for admissions to public housing 
     developments of the agency, which may include a system 
     whereby applicants may apply directly at or otherwise 
     designate the development or developments in which they seek 
     to reside. All such procedures must comply with all 
     provisions of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the 
     Fair Housing Act, and other applicable civil rights laws.''.

      SEC. 112. COMMUNITY SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC HOUSING 
                   AND SECTION 8 PROGRAMS.

       Section 12 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Community Service Requirements For Public Housing and 
     Section 8 Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--A public housing agency shall encourage 
     each adult member of each family residing in public housing 
     or assisted under section 8 to participate, for not less than 
     8 hours per month, in community service activities (not to 
     include any political activity) within the community in which 
     that adult resides.
       ``(2) Exemptions.--The requirement in paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply to any adult who is--
       ``(A) at least 62 years of age;
       ``(B) a person with disabilities who is unable, as 
     determined in accordance with guidelines established by the 
     Secretary, to comply with this subsection;
       ``(C) working at least 20 hours per week, a student, 
     receiving vocational training, or otherwise meeting work, 
     training, or educational requirements of a public assistance 
     program other than the program specified in subparagraph (E);
       ``(D) a single parent, grandparent, or the spouse of an 
     otherwise exempt individual, who is the primary caretaker of 
     one or more--
       ``(i) children who are 6 years of age or younger;
       ``(ii) persons who are at least 62 years of age; or
       ``(iii) persons with disabilities; or
       ``(E) in a family receiving assistance under the Temporary 
     Assistance for Needy Families program under part A of title 
     IV of the Social Security Act.''.

     SEC. 113. COMPREHENSIVE IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 
                   STREAMLINING.

       (a) Section 14(d) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) No assistance may be made available under subsection 
     (b) to a public housing agency that owns or operates fewer 
     than 250 public housing units unless the agency has submitted 
     a comprehensive plan in accordance with subsection (e)(1) and 
     the Secretary has approved it in accordance with subsection 
     (e)(2). The assistance shall be allocated to individual 
     agencies on the basis of a formula established by the 
     Secretary.''.
       (b) Section 14 (f)(1) is repealed.
       (c) Section 14 (g) is amended by striking ``(d)(3)'' and 
     inserting ``(d)''.
       (d) Section 14(h) is repealed.
       (e) Section 14(i) is repealed.
       (f) Section 14(k)(1) is amended by striking ``$75,000,000'' 
     and inserting ``$100,000,000''.

[[Page H2624]]

     SEC. 114. FLEXIBILITY FOR PHA FUNDING.

       (a) Expansion of Uses of Funding.--Section 14(q)(1) of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937 is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by inserting after ``section 
     5,'' the following ``by section 24,'';
       (2) in the first sentence, by inserting after ``public 
     housing agency,'', the following: ``except for the provision 
     of tenant-based assistance,''; and
       (3) by inserting at the end the following: 
     ``Notwithstanding the foregoing, (i) a public housing agency 
     that owns or operates fewer than 250 units may use 
     modernization assistance provided under section 14, 
     development assistance provided under section 5(a), and 
     operating subsidy provided under section 9, for any eligible 
     activity authorized by this Act or by applicable 
     appropriations Acts for a public housing agency, except for 
     assistance under section 8, and (ii) any agency determined to 
     be a troubled agency under section 6(j) may use amounts not 
     appropriated under section 9 for any operating subsidy 
     purpose authorized in section 9 only with the approval of the 
     Secretary and provided that the housing is maintained and 
     operated in a safe and sanitary condition.''.
       (b) Mixed-Finance Development.--Section 14(q)(2) of such 
     Act is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Mixed finance public housing.--
       ``(A) Authority.--The Secretary may, upon such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, authorize a public 
     housing agency to provide for the use of capital and 
     operating assistance provided under section 5, 14, or 9, 
     assistance for demolition, site revitalization, or 
     replacement housing provided under section 24, or assistance 
     under applicable appropriation Acts for a public housing 
     agency, to produce mixed-finance housing developments, or 
     replace or revitalize existing public housing dwelling units 
     with mixed-finance housing developments, but only if the 
     agency submits to the Secretary a plan for such housing that 
     is approved pursuant to subparagraph (C) by the Secretary.
       ``(B) Mixed-finance housing developments.--
       ``(i) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `mixed-
     finance housing' means low-income housing or mixed-income 
     housing for which the financing for development or 
     revitalization is provided, in part, from entities other than 
     the public housing agency.
       ``(ii) A mixed-finance housing development shall be 
     produced or revitalized, and owned--
       ``(I) by a public housing agency or by an entity affiliated 
     with a public housing agency;
       ``(II) by a partnership, a limited liability company, or 
     other entity in which the public housing agency (or an entity 
     affiliated with a public housing agency) is a general 
     partner, is a managing member, or otherwise participates in 
     the activities of the entity;
       ``(III) by any entity that grants to the public housing 
     agency the option to purchase the public housing project 
     during the 20-year period beginning on the date of initial 
     occupancy of the public housing project in accordance with 
     section 42(l)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
       ``(IV) in accordance with such other terms and conditions 
     as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation.
     This clause may not be construed to require development or 
     revitalization, and ownership, by the same entity.
       ``(C) Mixed-finance housing plan.--The Secretary may 
     approve a plan for development or revitalization of mixed-
     finance housing under this paragraph only if the Secretary 
     determines that--
       ``(i) the public housing agency has the ability, or has 
     provided for an entity under subparagraph (B)(ii) that has 
     the ability, to use the amounts provided for use under the 
     plan for such housing, effectively, either directly or 
     through contract management;
       ``(ii) the plan provides permanent financing commitments 
     from a sufficient number of sources other than the public 
     housing agency, which may include banks and other 
     conventional lenders, States, units of general local 
     government, State housing finance agencies, secondary market 
     entities, and other financial institutions;
       ``(iii) the plan provides for use of amounts provided under 
     subparagraph (A) by the public housing agency for financing 
     the mixed-income housing in the form of grants, loans, 
     advances, or other debt or equity investments, including 
     collateral or credit enhancement of bonds issued by the 
     agency or any State or local governmental agency for 
     development or revitalization of the development; and
       ``(iv) the plan complies with any other criteria that the 
     Secretary may establish.
       ``(D) Rent levels for housing financed with low-income 
     housing tax credit.--With respect to any dwelling unit in a 
     mixed-finance housing development that is a low-income 
     dwelling unit for which amounts from the Operating or Capital 
     Fund are used and that is assisted pursuant to the low-income 
     housing tax credit under section 42 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986, the rents charged to the residents of the unit 
     shall be determined in accordance with this title, but shall 
     not in any case exceed the amounts allowable under such 
     section 42.
       ``(E) Carry-over of assistance for replaced housing.--In 
     the case of a mixed-finance housing development that is 
     replacement housing for public housing demolished or disposed 
     of, or is the result of the revitalization of existing public 
     housing, the share of capital and operating assistance 
     received by the public housing agency that owned or operated 
     the housing demolished, disposed of, or revitalized shall not 
     be reduced because of such demolition, disposition, or 
     revitalization after the commencement of such demolition, 
     disposition, or revitalization, unless--
       ``(i) upon the expiration of the 18-month period beginning 
     upon the approval of the plan under subparagraph (C) for the 
     mixed-finance housing development, the agency does not have 
     binding commitments for development or revitalization, or a 
     construction contract, for such development;
       ``(ii) upon the expiration of the 4-year period beginning 
     upon the approval of the plan, the mixed-finance housing 
     development is not substantially ready for occupancy and is 
     placed under the annual contributions contract for the 
     agency; or
       ``(iii) the number of dwelling units in the mixed-finance 
     housing development that are made available for occupancy 
     only by low-income families is substantially less than the 
     number of such dwelling units in the public housing 
     demolished, disposed of, or revitalized.

     The Secretary may extend the period under clause (i) or (ii) 
     for a public housing agency if the Secretary determines that 
     circumstances beyond the control of the agency caused the 
     agency to fail to meet the deadline under such clause.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 14(q) of such Act is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``mixed income'' and 
     inserting ``mixed-finance''; and
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``mixed-income project'' 
     and inserting ``mixed-finance development''.
       (d) Applicability.--Section 14(q) of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937, as amended by this section, shall be 
     effective with respect to any assistance provided to the 
     public housing agency under sections 5 and 14 of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 and applicable appropriations Acts 
     for a public housing agency.

     SEC. 115. REPLACEMENT HOUSING RESOURCES.

       (a) Operating Fund.--Section 9(a)(3)(B) of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 is amended--
       (1) at the end of clause (iv), by striking ``and'';
       (2) at the end of clause (v), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting at the end the following:
       ``(vi) where an existing unit under a contract is 
     demolished or disposed of, the Secretary shall adjust the 
     amount the public housing agency receives under this section; 
     notwithstanding this requirement, the Secretary shall provide 
     assistance under this section in accordance with the 
     provisions of section 14(q)(2) (relating to mixed-finance 
     public housing).''.
       (b) Comprehensive Grant Program.--Section 14(k)(2)(D)(ii) 
     of such Act is amended to read as follows:
       ``(ii) Where an existing unit under a contract is 
     demolished or disposed of, the Secretary shall adjust the 
     amount the agency receives under the formula. Notwithstanding 
     the preceding sentence, for the five-year period after 
     demolition or disposition, the Secretary may provide for no 
     adjustment, or a partial adjustment, of the amount the agency 
     receives under the formula and shall require the agency to 
     use any additional amount received as a result of this 
     sentence for replacement housing or physical improvements 
     necessary to preserve viable public housing.''.

     SEC. 116. REPEAL OF ONE-FOR-ONE REPLACEMENT HOUSING 
                   REQUIREMENT.

       Section 1002(d) of Public Law 104-19 is amended by striking 
     ``and on or before September 30, 1997''.

     SEC. 117. DEMOLITION, SITE REVITALIZATION, REPLACEMENT 
                   HOUSING, AND TENANT-BASED ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR 
                   DEVELOPMENTS.

       Section 24 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 is 
     amended--
       (1) by amending the heading to read as follows: 
     ``DEMOLITION, SITE REVITALIZATION, REPLACEMENT HOUSING, AND 
     TENANT-BASED ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR DEVELOPMENTS'';
       (2) by amending subsections (a) through (c) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide 
     assistance to public housing agencies for the purposes of--
       ``(1) reducing the density and improving the living 
     environment for public housing residents of severely 
     distressed public housing through the demolition of obsolete 
     public housing developments (or portions thereof);
       ``(2) revitalizing sites (including remaining public 
     housing dwelling units) on which such public housing 
     developments are located and contributing to the improvement 
     of the surrounding neighborhood;
       ``(3) providing housing that will avoid or decrease the 
     concentration of very low-income families; and
       ``(4) providing tenant-based assistance in accordance with 
     the provisions of section 8 for the purpose of providing 
     replacement housing and assisting residents to be displaced 
     by the demolition.
       ``(b) Grant Authority.--The Secretary may make grants 
     available to public housing agencies as provided in this 
     section.
       ``(c) Contribution Requirement.--The Secretary may not make 
     any grant under this section to any applicant unless the 
     applicant supplements the amount of assistance provided under 
     this section (other than amount

[[Page H2625]]

     provided for demolition or tenant-based assistance) with an 
     amount of funds from sources other than this Act equal to not 
     less than 5 percent of the amount provided under this 
     section, including amounts from other Federal sources, any 
     State or local government sources, any private contributions, 
     and the value of any in-kind services or administrative costs 
     provided.'';
       (3) by amending subsection (d)(1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may make grants under this 
     subsection to applicants for the purpose of carrying out 
     demolition, revitalization, and replacement programs for 
     severely distressed public housing under this section. The 
     Secretary may make a grant for the revitalization or 
     replacement of public housing only if the agency demonstrates 
     that the neighborhood is or will be a viable residential 
     community, as defined by the Secretary, after completion of 
     the work assisted under this section and any other 
     neighborhood improvements planned by the State or local 
     government or otherwise to be provided. The Secretary may 
     approve grants providing assistance for one eligible activity 
     or a combination of eligible activities under this section, 
     including assistance only for demolition and assistance only 
     for tenant-based assistance in accordance with the provisions 
     of section 8.'';
       (4) in subsection (d)(2)(B)--
       (A) by striking ``the redesign'' and inserting ``the 
     abatement of environmental hazards, demolition, redesign''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``is located'' and inserting ``is or was 
     located'';
       (5) in subsection (d)(2), by redesignating subparagraphs 
     (C) through (I) as subparagraphs (D) through (J), 
     respectively, and inserting the following new subparagraph 
     after subparagraph (B):
       ``(C) replacement housing, which shall consist of public 
     housing, homeownership units as permitted under the HOPE VI 
     program (as previously authorized in appropriations Acts), 
     tenant-based assistance in accordance with the provisions of 
     section 8, or a combination;'';
       (6)(A) in subsection (G), as redesignated by paragraph (5), 
     by inserting before the semicolon the following: ``and any 
     necessary supportive services, except that not more than 15 
     percent of any grant under this subsection may be used for 
     such purposes.'';
       (B) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subsection (H), as 
     redesignated by paragraph (4); and
       (C) by striking the semicolon at the end of subsection (I), 
     as redesignated by paragraph (4), and all that follows up to 
     the period;
       (7) in paragraph (3), by striking the second sentence;
       (8) by amending subsection (d)(4) to read as follows:
       ``(4) Selection criteria.--
       ``(A) Applications for demolition.--The Secretary shall 
     establish selection criteria for applications that request 
     assistance only for demolition, which shall include--
       ``(i) the need for demolition, taking into account the 
     effect of the distressed development on the public housing 
     agency and the community;
       ``(ii) the extent to which the public housing agency is not 
     able to undertake such activities without a grant under this 
     section;
       ``(iii) the extent of involvement of residents and State 
     and local governments in determining the need for demolition; 
     and
       ``(iv) such other factors as the Secretary determines 
     appropriate.
       ``(B) Applications for demolition, revitalization, and 
     replacement.--The Secretary shall establish selection 
     criteria for applications that request assistance for a 
     combination of eligible activities, which shall include--
       ``(i) the relationship of the grant to the comprehensive 
     plan for the locality;
       ``(ii) the extent to which the grant will result in a 
     viable development which will foster the economic and social 
     integration of public housing residents and the extent to 
     which the development will enhance the community;
       ``(iii) the capability and record of the applicant public 
     housing agency, its development team, or any alternative 
     management agency for the agency, for managing large-scale 
     redevelopment or modernization projects, meeting construction 
     timetables, and obligating amounts in a timely manner;
       ``(iv) the extent to which the public housing agency is not 
     able to undertake such activities without a grant under this 
     section;
       ``(v) the extent of involvement of residents, State and 
     local governments, private service providers, financing 
     entities, and developers, in the development of a 
     revitalization program for the development;
       ``(vi) the amount of funds and other resources to be 
     leveraged by the grant; and
       ``(vii) such other factors as the Secretary determines 
     appropriate.''
       ``(C) Applications for tenant-based assistance.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, the 
     Secretary may allocate tenant-based assistance under this 
     section on a non-competitive basis in connection with the 
     demolition or disposition of public housing.'';
       (9) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:
       ``(e) Long Term Viability.--The Secretary may waive or 
     revise rules established under this Act governing the 
     development, management, and operation of public housing 
     units, to permit a public housing agency to undertake 
     measures that enhance the long-term viability of a severely 
     distressed public housing project revitalized under this 
     section; except that the Secretary may not waive or revise 
     the rent limitation under section 3(a)(1)(A) or the targeting 
     requirements under section 16(a).'';
       (10) in subsection (f)--
       (A) by striking ``OTHER'' and all that follows through 
     ``(1)'';
       (B) by striking paragraph (2); and
       (C) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as 
     paragraphs (1) and (2);
       (11) by striking subsections (g) and (i) and redesignating 
     subsection (h) as subsection (j);
       (12) by inserting the following new subsections after 
     subsection (f):
       ``(g) Administration by Other Entities.--The Secretary may 
     require a grantee under this section to make arrangements 
     satisfactory to the Secretary for use of an entity other than 
     the public housing agency to carry out activities assisted 
     under the revitalization plan, if the Secretary determines 
     that such action will help to effectuate the purposes of this 
     section.
       ``(h) Timely expenditures.--
       ``(1) Withdrawal of funding.--If a grantee under this 
     section or under the HOPE VI program does not sign the 
     primary construction contract for the work included in the 
     grant agreement within 18 months from the date of the grant 
     agreement, the Secretary shall withdraw any grant amounts 
     under the grant agreement which have not been obligated by 
     the grantee. The Secretary shall redistribute any withdrawn 
     amounts to one or more applicants eligible for assistance 
     under this section. The Secretary may grant an extension of 
     up to one additional year from the date of enactment of this 
     Act if the 18-month period has expired as of the date of 
     enactment, for delays caused by factors beyond the control of 
     the grantee.
       ``(2) Completion.--A grant agreement under this section 
     shall provide for interim checkpoints and for completion of 
     physical activities within four years of execution, and the 
     Secretary shall enforce these requirements through default 
     remedies up to and including withdrawal of funding. The 
     Secretary may, however, provide for a longer timeframe, but 
     only when necessary due to factors beyond the control of the 
     grantee.
       ``(3) Inapplicability.--This subsection shall not apply to 
     grants for tenant-based assistance under section 8.
       ``(i) Inapplicability of Section 18.--Section 18 shall not 
     apply to the demolition of developments removed from the 
     inventory of the public housing agency under this section.'';
       (13) by amending subsection (j)(1), as redesignated by 
     paragraph (11)--
       (A) in subparagraph (C), by inserting after ``nonprofit 
     organization,'' the following: ``private program manager, a 
     partner in a mixed-finance development,'';
       (B) at the end of subparagraph (B), after the semicolon, by 
     inserting ``and''; and
       (C) at the end of subparagraph (C), by striking ``; and'' 
     and all that follows up to the period;
       (14) by amending subsection (j)(5), as redesignated by 
     paragraph (11)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by striking ``(i)'';
       (ii) by striking clauses (ii) through (iv); and
       (iii) by inserting after ``physical plant of the project'' 
     the following: ``, where such distress cannot be remedied 
     through assistance under section 14 because of inadequacy of 
     available funding'';
       (B) by amending subparagraph (A), as amended by 
     subparagraph (A) of this paragraph (14), by striking 
     ``appropriately'' and inserting ``inappropriately''; and
       (C) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) that was a project as described in subparagraph (A) 
     that has been demolished, but for which the Secretary has not 
     provided replacement housing assistance (other than tenant-
     based assistance).'';
       (15) by inserting at the end of subsection (j), as 
     redesignated by paragraph (11), the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Supportive services.--The term `supportive services' 
     includes all activities that will promote upward mobility, 
     self-sufficiency, and improved quality of life for the 
     residents of the public housing development involved, 
     including literacy training, job training, day care, and 
     economic development activities.''; and
       (16) by inserting the following new subsection at the end:
       ``(k) Technical Assistance and Program Oversight.--Of the 
     amount appropriated for any fiscal year for grants under this 
     section, the Secretary may use up to 2.5 percent for 
     technical assistance, program oversight, and fellowships for 
     on-site public housing agency assistance and supplemental 
     education. Technical assistance may be provided directly or 
     indirectly by grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements, 
     and may include training, and the cost of necessary travel 
     for participants in such training, by or to officials of the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development, of public 
     housing agencies, and of residents. The Secretary may use 
     amounts under this paragraph for program oversight to 
     contract with private program and construction management 
     entities to assure that development activities are carried 
     out in a timely and cost-effective manner.''.

     SEC. 118. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION BOARD.

       (a) Establishment.--There is hereby established a 
     performance evaluation board to

[[Page H2626]]

     assist the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in 
     improving and monitoring the system for evaluation of public 
     housing authority performance, including by studying and 
     making recommendations to the Secretary on the most 
     effective, efficient and productive method or methods of 
     evaluating the performance of public housing agencies, 
     consistent with the overall goal of improving management of 
     the public housing program.
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) In general.--The board shall be composed of at least 
     seven members with relevant experience who shall be appointed 
     by the Secretary as soon as practicable, but not later than 
     90 days after enactment of this Act.
       (2) Appointments.--In appointing members of the board, the 
     Secretary shall assure that each of the background areas set 
     forth in paragraph (3) are represented.
       (3) Backgrounds.--Background areas to be represented are--
       (A) major public housing organizations;
       (B) public housing resident organizations;
       (C) real estate management, finance, or development 
     entities; and
       (D) units of general local government.
       (c) Board Procedures.--
       (1) Chairperson.--The Secretary shall appoint a chairperson 
     from among members of the board.
       (2) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the board shall 
     constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
       (3) Voting.--Each member of the board shall be entitled to 
     one vote, which shall be equal to the vote of each other 
     member of the board.
       (4) Prohibition of additional pay.--Members of the board 
     shall serve without compensation, but shall be reimbursed for 
     travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred in 
     the performance of their duties as members of the board.
       (d) Powers.--
       (1) Hearings.--The board may, for the purpose of carrying 
     out this section, hold such hearings and sit and act at such 
     times and places as the board determines appropriate.
       (2) Assistance from federal agencies.--.
       (A) Information.--The board may request from any agency of 
     the United States, and such agency is authorized to provide, 
     such data and information as the board may require for 
     carrying out its functions.
       (B) Staff support.--Upon request of the chairperson of the 
     board, to assist the board in carrying out its duties under 
     this section, the Secretary may--
       (i) provide an executive secretariat;
       (ii) assign by detail or otherwise any of the personnel of 
     the Department of Housing and Urban Development; and
       (iii) obtain by personal services contracts or otherwise 
     any technical or other assistance needed to carry out this 
     section.
       (e) Advisory Committee.--The board shall be considered an 
     advisory committee within the meaning of the Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
       (f) Functions.--The board shall, as needed--
       (1) examine and assess the need for further modifications 
     to or replacement of the Public Housing Management Assessment 
     program, established by the Secretary under section 6(j) of 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937;
       (2) examine and assess models used in other industries or 
     public programs to assess the performance of recipients of 
     assistance, including accreditation systems, and the 
     applicability of those models to public housing;
       (3) develop (either itself, or through another body) 
     standards for professional competency for the public housing 
     industry, including methods of assessing the qualifications 
     of employees of public housing authorities, such as systems 
     for certifying the qualifications of employees;
       (4) develop a system for increasing the use of on-site 
     physical inspections of public housing developments; and
       (5) develop a system for increasing the use of independent 
     audits, as part of the overall system for evaluating the 
     performance of public housing agencies.
       (g) Reports.--
       (1) Not later than the expiration of the three-month period 
     beginning upon the appointment of the seventh member of the 
     board, and one year from such appointment, the board shall 
     issue interim reports to the Secretary on its activities. The 
     board shall make its final report and recommendations one 
     year after its second interim report is issued. The final 
     report shall include findings and recommendations of the 
     board based upon the functions carried out under this 
     section.
       (2) After the board issues its final report, it may be 
     convened by its chair, upon the request of the Secretary, to 
     review implementation of the performance evaluation system 
     and for other purposes.
       (h) Term.--The duration of the board shall be seven years.
       (i) Funding.--The Secretary is authorized to use any 
     amounts appropriated under the head Preserving Existing 
     Housing Investment, or predecessor or successor appropriation 
     accounts, without regard to any earmarks of funding, to carry 
     out this section.

     SEC. 119. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FOR 
                   PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENTS.

       The United States Housing Act of 1937 is amended by adding 
     the following new section after section 27:

     ``SEC. 28. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FOR 
                   PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENTS.

       ``(a) In General.--To the extent provided in advance in 
     appropriations Acts, the Secretary shall make grants for the 
     purposes of providing a program of supportive services and 
     resident self-sufficiency activities to enable residents of 
     public housing to become economically self-sufficient and to 
     assist elderly persons and persons with disabilities to 
     maintain independent living, to the following eligible 
     applicants:
       ``(1) public housing agencies;
       ``(2) resident councils;
       ``(3) resident management corporations or other eligible 
     resident entities defined by the Secretary;
       ``(4) other applicants, as determined by the Secretary; and
       ``(5) any partnership of eligible applicants.
       ``(b) Eligible Activities.--Grantees under this section may 
     use grants for the provision of supportive service, economic 
     development, and self-sufficiency activities conducted 
     primarily for public housing residents in a manner that is 
     easily accessible to those residents. Such activities shall 
     include--
       ``(1) the provision of service coordinators and case 
     managers;
       ``(2) the provision of services related to work readiness, 
     including education, job training and counseling, job search 
     skills, business development training and planning, tutoring, 
     mentoring, adult literacy, computer access, personal and 
     family counseling, health screening, work readiness health 
     services, transportation, and child care;
       ``(3) economic and job development, including employer 
     linkages and job placement, and the start-up of resident 
     microenterprises, community credit unions, and revolving loan 
     funds, including the licensing, bonding and insurance needed 
     to operate such enterprises;
       ``(4) resident management activities, including related 
     training and technical assistance; and
       ``(5) other activities designed to improve the self-
     sufficiency of residents, as may be determined in the sole 
     discretion of the Secretary.
       ``(c) Funding Distribution.--
       ``(1) In general.--After reserving such amounts as the 
     Secretary determines to be necessary for technical assistance 
     and clearinghouse services under subsection (d), the 
     Secretary shall distribute any remaining amounts made 
     available under this section on a competitive basis. The 
     Secretary may set a cap on the maximum grant amount permitted 
     under this section, and may limit applications for grants 
     under this section to selected applicants or categories of 
     applicants.
       ``(2) Selection criteria.--The Secretary shall establish 
     selection criteria for applications that request assistance 
     for one or more eligible activities under this section, which 
     shall include--
       ``(A) the demonstrated capacity of the applicant to carry 
     out a program of supportive services or resident empowerment 
     activities;
       ``(B) the amount of funds and other resources to be 
     leveraged by the grant;
       ``(C) the extent to which the grant will result in a 
     quality program of supportive services or resident 
     empowerment activities;
       ``(D) the extent to which any job training and placement 
     services to be provided are coordinated with the provision of 
     such services under the Job Training Partnership Act and the 
     Wagner-Peyser Act; and
       ``(E) such other factors as the Secretary determines 
     appropriate.
       ``(3) Matching requirement.--The Secretary may not make any 
     grant under this section to any applicant unless the 
     applicant supplements every dollar provided under this 
     subsection with an amount of funds from sources other than 
     this section equal to at least twice the amount provided 
     under this subsection, including amounts from other Federal 
     sources, any State or local government sources, any private 
     contributions, and the value of any in-kind services or 
     administrative costs provided. Of the supplemental funds 
     furnished by the applicant, not more than 50 percent may be 
     in the form of in-kind services or administrative costs 
     provided.
       ``(d) Funding for Technical Assistance.--The Secretary may 
     set aside a portion of the amounts appropriated under this 
     section, to be provided directly or indirectly by grants, 
     contracts, or cooperative agreements, for technical 
     assistance, which may include training and cost of necessary 
     travel for participants in such training, by or to officials 
     and employees of the Department and of public housing 
     agencies, and to residents and to other eligible grantees, 
     and for clearinghouse services in furtherance of the goals 
     and activities of this section.
       ``(e) Contract Administrators.--The Secretary may require 
     resident councils, resident management corporations, or other 
     eligible entities defined by the Secretary to utilize public 
     housing agencies or other qualified organizations as contract 
     administrators with respect to grants provided under this 
     section.''.

     SEC. 120. PENALTY FOR SLOW EXPENDITURE OF MODERNIZATION 
                   FUNDS.

       Section 14(k)(5) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(5)(A) A public housing agency shall obligate any 
     assistance received under this section within 18 months of 
     the date funds become available to the agency for obligation. 
     The Secretary may extend this time period by no more than one 
     year if an agency's failure to obligate such assistance in a 
     timely manner is attributable to events beyond the

[[Page H2627]]

     control of the agency. The Secretary may also provide an 
     exception for de minimis amounts to be obligated with the 
     next year's funding; an agency that owns or administers fewer 
     than 250 public housing units, to the extent necessary to 
     permit the agency to accumulate sufficient funding to 
     undertake activities; and any agency, to the extent necessary 
     to permit the agency to accumulate sufficient funding to 
     provide replacement housing.
       ``(B) A public housing agency shall not be awarded 
     assistance under this section for any month in a year in 
     which it has funds unobligated, in violation of subparagraph 
     (A). During such a year, the Secretary shall withhold all 
     assistance which would otherwise be provided to the agency. 
     If the agency cures its default during the year, it shall be 
     provided with the share attributable to the months remaining 
     in the year. Any funds not so provided to the agency shall be 
     provided to high-performing agencies as determined under 
     section 6(j).
       ``(C) If the Secretary has consented, before the date of 
     enactment of the Public Housing Management Reform Act of 
     1997, to an obligation period for any agency longer than 
     provided under this paragraph, an agency which obligates its 
     funds within such extended period shall not be considered to 
     be in violation of subparagraph (A). Notwithstanding any 
     prior consent of the Secretary, however, all funds 
     appropriated in fiscal year 1995 and prior years shall be 
     fully obligated by the end of fiscal year 1998, and all funds 
     appropriated in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 shall be fully 
     obligated by the end of fiscal year 1999.
       ``(D) A public housing agency shall spend any assistance 
     received under this section within four years (plus the 
     period of any extension approved by the Secretary under 
     subparagraph (A)) of the date funds become available to the 
     agency for obligation. The Secretary shall enforce this 
     requirement through default remedies up to and including 
     withdrawal of the funding. Any obligation entered into by an 
     agency shall be subject to the right of the Secretary to 
     recapture the amounts for violation by the agency of the 
     requirements of this subparagraph.''.

     SEC. 121. DESIGNATION OF PHA'S AS TROUBLED.

       (a) Section 6(j)(1)(A) of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937, as amended by sections 108 and 109, is further 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting the following after 
     clause (x):
       ``(xi) Whether the agency is providing acceptable basic 
     housing conditions, as determined by the Secretary.''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) by redesignating clause (v) as clause (vi); and
       (B) by inserting the following after clause (iv):
       ``(v) Whether the agency is providing acceptable basic 
     housing conditions, as determined by the Secretary.''.
       (b) Section 6(j)(2)(A)(i) of such Act is amended by 
     inserting the following after the first sentence: ``Such 
     procedures shall provide that an agency that does not provide 
     acceptable basic housing conditions shall be designated a 
     troubled public housing agency.''.
       (c) Section 6(j)(2)(A)(i) of such Act is amended in the 
     first sentence--
       (1) by inserting before ``the performance indicators'' the 
     subclause designation ``(I)''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period the following: ``; or 
     (II) such other evaluation system as is determined by the 
     Secretary to assess the condition of the public housing 
     agency or resident management corporation, which system may 
     be in addition to or in lieu of the performance indicators 
     established under paragraph (1)''.

     SEC. 122. VOLUNTEER SERVICES UNDER THE 1937 ACT.

       (a) In General.--Section 12(b) of the United States Housing 
     Act of 1937 is amended by striking ``that--'' and all that 
     follows up to the period and inserting ``who performs 
     volunteer services in accordance with the requirements of the 
     Community Improvement Volunteer Act of 1994''.
       (b) CIVA Amendment.--Section 7305 of the Community 
     Improvement Volunteer Act of 1994 is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting the following paragraph after paragraph 
     (6):
       ``(7) the United States Housing Act of 1937.''.

     SEC. 123. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR OPERATION SAFE 
                   HOME PROGRAM.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the 
     Operation Safe Home program $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1998 
     and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1999, 
     2000, 2001, and 2002.
    TITLE II--SECTION 8 STREAMLINING AND OTHER PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS

     SEC. 201. PERMANENT REPEAL OF FEDERAL PREFERENCES.

       (a) Notwithstanding section 402(f) of The Balanced Budget 
     Downpayment Act, I, the amendments made by section 402(d) of 
     that Act shall remain in effect after fiscal year 1997, 
     except that the amendments made by sections 402(d)(3) and 
     402(d)(6)(A)(iii), (iv), and (vi) of such Act shall remain in 
     effect as amended by sections 203 and 116 of this Act, and 
     section 402(d)(6)(v) shall be repealed by the amendments made 
     to section 16 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 by 
     section 202 of this Act.
       (b) Section 6(c)(4)(A) of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937, as amended by section 402(d)(1) of The Balanced Budget 
     Downpayment Act, I, is amended by striking ``is'' and all 
     that follows through ``Act'' and inserting the following: 
     ``shall be based upon local housing needs and priorities, as 
     determined by the public housing agency using generally 
     accepted data sources, including any information obtained 
     pursuant to an opportunity for public comment under this 
     subparagraph, under section 5A(b), and under the requirements 
     of the approved Consolidated Plan for the locality''.
       (c) Section 8(d)(1)(A) of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937, as amended by section 402(d)(2) of The Balanced Budget 
     Downpayment Act, I, is amended by striking ``is'' and all 
     that follows through ``Act'' and inserting the following: 
     ``shall be based upon local housing needs and priorities, as 
     determined by the public housing agency using generally 
     accepted data sources, including any information obtained 
     pursuant to an opportunity for public comment under this 
     subparagraph, under section 5A(b), and under the requirements 
     of the approved Consolidated Plan for the locality''.

     SEC. 202. INCOME TARGETING FOR PUBLIC HOUSING AND SECTION 8 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Section 16 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 is 
     amended by revising the heading and subsections (a) through 
     (c) to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 16. ELIGIBILITY FOR PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING.

       ``(a) Public Housing.--
       ``(1) Program requirement.--Of the public housing units of 
     a public housing agency made available for occupancy by 
     eligible families in any fiscal year of the agency--
       ``(A) at least 40 percent shall be occupied by families 
     whose incomes do not exceed 30 percent of the median income 
     for the area; and
       ``(B) at least 90 percent shall be occupied by families 
     whose incomes do not exceed 60 percent of the median income 
     for the area; except that, for any fiscal year, the Secretary 
     may reduce to 80 percent the percentage under this 
     subparagraph for a public housing agency if the agency 
     demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that such 
     reduction would be used for, and would result in, the 
     enhancement of the long-term viability of the housing 
     developments of the agency.
       ``(2) Development requirement.--At least 40 percent of the 
     units in each public housing development shall be occupied by 
     families with incomes which are less than 30 percent of the 
     median income for the area, except that no family may be 
     required to move to achieve compliance with this requirement.
       ``(b) Section 8 Assistance.--
       ``(1) Tenant-based, moderate rehabilitation, and project-
     based certificate assistance.--In any fiscal year of a public 
     housing agency, at least 75 percent of all families who 
     initially receive tenant-based assistance from the agency, 
     assistance under the moderate rehabilitation program of the 
     agency, or assistance under the project-based certificate 
     program of the agency shall be families whose incomes do not 
     exceed 30 percent of the median income for the area.
       ``(2) Project-based assistance.--Of the dwelling units in a 
     project receiving section 8 assistance, other than assistance 
     described in paragraph (1), that are made available for 
     occupancy by eligible families in any year (as determined by 
     the Secretary)--
       ``(A) at least 40 percent shall be occupied by families 
     whose incomes do not exceed 30 percent of the median income 
     for the area; and
       ``(B) at least 90 percent shall be occupied by families 
     whose incomes do not exceed 60 percent of the median income 
     for the area.
       ``(c) Definition of Area Median Income.--The term `area 
     median income', as used in subsections (a) and (b), refers to 
     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 subsections (a) and (b) if 
     the Secretary determines that such variations are necessary 
     because of unusually high or low family incomes.''.
       (b) Section 16 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as 
     amended by this section, is further amended by inserting the 
     following new heading after subsection designation (d): 
     ``Applicability.--''.

     SEC. 203. MERGER OF TENANT-BASED ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(o) Rental Certificates.--(1) A public housing agency may 
     only enter into contracts for tenant-based rental assistance 
     under this Act pursuant to this subsection. The Secretary may 
     provide rental assistance using a payment standard in 
     accordance with this subsection. The payment standard shall 
     be used to determine the monthly assistance which may be paid 
     for any family.
       ``(2)(A) The payment standard may not exceed the FMR/
     exception rent limit. The payment standard may not be less 
     than 80 percent of the FMR/exception rent limit.
       ``(B) The term `FMR/exception rent limit' means the section 
     8 existing housing fair market rent published by HUD in 
     accordance with subsection (c)(1) or any exception rent 
     approved by HUD for a designated part of the fair market rent 
     area. HUD may approve an

[[Page H2628]]

     exception rent of up to 120 percent of the published fair 
     market rent.
       ``(3)(A) For assistance under this subsection provided by a 
     public housing agency on and after October 1, 1998, to the 
     extent approved in appropriations Acts, the monthly 
     assistance payment for any family that moves to another unit 
     in another complex or moves to a single family dwelling shall 
     be the amount determined by subtracting the family 
     contribution as determined in accordance with section 3(a) 
     from the applicable payment standard, except that such 
     monthly assistance payment shall not exceed the amount by 
     which the rent for the dwelling unit (including the amount 
     allowed for utilities in the case of a unit with separate 
     utility metering) exceeds 10 percent of the family's monthly 
     income.
       ``(B) For any family not covered by subparagraph (A), the 
     monthly assistance payment for the family shall be determined 
     by subtracting the family contribution as determined in 
     accordance with section 3(a) from the lower of the applicable 
     payment standard and the rent for the dwelling unit 
     (including the amount allowed for utilities in the case of a 
     unit with separate utility metering).
       ``(4) Assistance payments may be made only for:
       ``(A) a family determined to be a very low-income family at 
     the time the family initially receives assistance, or
       ``(B) another low-income family in circumstances determined 
     by the Secretary.
       ``(5) If a family vacates a dwelling unit before the 
     expiration of a lease term, no assistance payment may be made 
     with respect to the unit after the month during which the 
     unit was vacated.
       ``(6) The Secretary shall require that:
       ``(A) the public housing agency shall inspect the unit 
     before any assistance payment may be made to determine that 
     the unit meets housing quality standards for decent, safe, 
     and sanitary housing established by the Secretary for the 
     purpose of this section, and
       ``(B) the public housing agency shall make annual or more 
     frequent inspections during the contract term. No assistance 
     payment may be made for a dwelling unit which fails to meet 
     such quality standards.
       ``(7) The rent for units assisted under this subsection 
     shall be reasonable in comparison with rents charged for 
     comparable units in the private unassisted market. A public 
     housing agency shall review all rents for units under 
     consideration by families assisted under this subsection (and 
     all rent increases for units under lease by families assisted 
     under this subsection) to determine whether the rent (or rent 
     increase) requested by an owner is reasonable. If a public 
     housing agency determines that the rent (or rent increase) 
     for a unit is not reasonable, the agency may not approve a 
     lease for such unit.
       ``(8) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this 
     subsection, section 8(c) of this Act does not apply to 
     assistance under this subsection.''.
       (b) In Section 3(a)(1) of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937, the second sentence is revised as follows:
       (1) by striking ``or paying rent under section 
     8(c)(3)(B)''; and
       (2) by striking ``the highest of the following amounts, 
     rounded to the nearest dollar:'' and inserting ``and the 
     family contribution for a family assisted under section 8(o) 
     or 8(y) shall be the highest of the following amounts, 
     rounded to the next dollar:''.
       (c) Section 8(b) of the United States Housing Act is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``Rental Certificates and Other Existing 
     Housing Programs.--'' and inserting ``(1)''; and
       (2) by striking the second sentence.
       (d) Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (c)(3)(B);
       (2) in subsection (d)(2), by striking subparagraphs (A), 
     (B), (C), (D) and (E); and by redesignating subparagraphs 
     (F), (G) and (H) as subparagraphs (A), (B) and (C) 
     respectively;
       (3) in subsection (f)(6), as redesignated by section 
     306(b)(2) of this Act, by striking ``under subsection (b) or 
     (o)''; and
       (4) by striking subsection (j).

     SEC. 204. SECTION 8 ADMINISTRATIVE FEES.

       (a) Section 202(a)(1)(A) of the Departments of Veterans 
     Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, Independent 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997 is amended by--
       (1) striking ``7.5 percent'' and inserting ``7.65 
     percent'';
       (2) striking ``a program of'' and inserting ``one or more 
     such programs totaling''; and
       (3) inserting before the final period, ``of such total 
     units''.
       (b) The amendments made by this section shall be effective 
     as of October 1, 1997.

     SEC. 205. SECTION 8 HOMEOWNERSHIP.

       (a) Amendments to section 8(y).--Section 8(y) of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``A family receiving'' 
     through ``if the family'' and inserting the following: ``A 
     public housing agency providing tenant-based assistance on 
     behalf of an eligible family under this section may provide 
     assistance for an eligible family that purchases a dwelling 
     unit (including a unit under a lease-purchase agreement) that 
     will be owned by one or more members of the family, and will 
     be occupied by the family, if the family'';
       (2) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting before the semicolon 
     the following: ``, or owns or is acquiring shares in a 
     cooperative'';
       (3) in paragraph (1), by amending paragraph (B) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(B)(i) in the case of disabled families and elderly 
     families, demonstrates that the family has income from 
     employment or other sources, as determined in accordance with 
     requirements of the Secretary, in such amount as may be 
     established by the Secretary; and
       ``(ii) in the case of other families, demonstrates that the 
     family has income from employment, as determined in 
     accordance with requirements of the Secretary, in such amount 
     as may be established by the Secretary;'';
       (4) in paragraph (1)(C), by striking ``except as'' and 
     inserting ``except in the case of disabled families and 
     elderly families and as otherwise'';
       (5) in paragraph (1), by inserting at the end the 
     following: ``The Secretary or the public housing agency may 
     target assistance under this subsection for program purposes, 
     such as to families assisted in connection with the FHA 
     multifamily demonstration under section 212 of the 
     Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1997.'';
       (6) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) Determination of amount of assistance.--The monthly 
     assistance payment for any family shall be the amount 
     determined by subtracting the family contribution as 
     determined under section 3(a) of this Act from the lower of:
       ``(A) the applicable payment standard, or
       ``(B) the monthly homeownership expenses, as determined in 
     accordance with requirements established by the Secretary, of 
     the family.'';
       (7) by redesignating paragraphs (6), (7), and (8), as 
     paragraphs (9), (10), and (11), respectively;
       (8) by striking paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) and inserting 
     the following after paragraph (2):
       ``(3) Inspections and contract conditions.--Each contract 
     for the purchase of a unit to be assisted under this section 
     shall provide for pre-purchase inspection of the unit by an 
     independent professional and shall require that any cost of 
     necessary repairs shall be paid by the seller. The 
     requirement under section 8(o)(5)(B) for annual inspections 
     of the unit shall not apply to units assisted under this 
     section.
       ``(4) Downpayment requirement.--Each public housing agency 
     providing assistance under this subsection shall require that 
     each assisted family make a significant contribution, from 
     its own resources, determined in accordance with guidelines 
     established by the Secretary, to cover all or a portion of 
     the downpayment required in connection with the purchase, 
     which may include credit for work by one or more family 
     members to improve the dwelling (``sweat equity'').
       ``(5) Reserve for replacements.--The Secretary shall 
     require each family to pay an amount equal to one percent of 
     the monthly amount payable by the family for principal and 
     interest on its acquisition loan into a reserve for repairs 
     and replacements for five years after the date of purchase. 
     Any amounts remaining in the reserve after five years shall 
     be paid to the family.
       ``(6) Application of net proceeds upon sale.--The Secretary 
     shall require that the net proceeds upon sale by a family of 
     a unit owned by the family while it received assistance under 
     this subsection shall be divided between the public housing 
     agency and the family. The Secretary shall establish 
     guidelines for determining the amount to be received by the 
     family and the amount to be received by the agency, which 
     shall take into account the relative amount of assistance 
     provided on behalf of the family in comparison with the 
     amount paid by the family from its own resources. The 
     Secretary shall require the agency to use any amounts 
     received under this paragraph to provide assistance under 
     subsection (o) or this subsection.
       ``(7) Limitation on size of program.--A public housing 
     agency may permit no more than 10 percent of the families 
     receiving tenant-based assistance provided by the agency to 
     use the assistance for homeownership under this subsection. 
     The Secretary may permit no more than 5 percent of all 
     families receiving tenant-based assistance to use the 
     assistance for homeownership under this subsection.
       ``(8) Other program requirements.--The Secretary may 
     establish such other requirements and limitations the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate in connection with the 
     provision of assistance under this section, which may include 
     limiting the term of assistance for a family. The Secretary 
     may modify the requirements of this subsection where 
     necessary to make appropriate adaptations for lease-purchase 
     agreements. The Secretary shall establish performance 
     measures and procedures to monitor the provision of 
     assistance under this subsection in relation to the purpose 
     of providing homeownership opportunities for eligible 
     families.'';
       (9) in paragraph (10)(A)), as redesignated by paragraph (7) 
     of this section, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``dwelling, (ii)'' and inserting 
     ``dwelling, and (ii)''; and
       (B) by striking ``, (iii)'' and all that follows up to the 
     period; and
       (10) by inserting after paragraph (11), as redesignated by 
     paragraph (7) of this section, the following:
       ``(12) Sunset.--The authority to provide assistance to 
     additional families under this subsection shall terminate on 
     September 30,

[[Page H2629]]

     2002. The Secretary shall then prepare a report evaluating 
     the effectiveness of homeownership assistance under this 
     subsection.''.
       (b) Family Self-Sufficiency Escrow.--Section 23(d)(3) of 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937 is repealed.

     SEC. 206. WELFARE TO WORK CERTIFICATES.

       (a) To the extent of amounts approved in appropriations 
     Acts, the Secretary may provide funding for welfare to work 
     certificates in accordance with this section. 
     ``Certificates'' means tenant-based rental assistance in 
     accordance with section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937.
       (b) Funding under this section shall be used for a 
     demonstration linking use of such certificate assistance with 
     welfare reform initiatives to help families make the 
     transition from welfare to work, and for technical assistance 
     in connection with such demonstration.
       (c) Funding may only be awarded upon joint application by a 
     public housing agency and a State or local welfare agency. 
     Allocation of demonstration funding is not subject to section 
     213 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
       (d) Assistance provided under this section shall not be 
     taken into account in determining the size of the family 
     self-sufficiency program of a public housing agency under 
     section 23 of the United States Housing Act of 1937.
       (e) For purposes of the demonstration, the Secretary may 
     waive, or specify alternative requirements for, requirements 
     established by or under this Act concerning the certificate 
     program, including requirements concerning the amount of 
     assistance, the family contribution, and the rent payable by 
     the family.

     SEC. 207. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 3(a) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as 
     amended by section 103, is amended by inserting the following 
     after paragraph (3):
       ``(4)(A) If the welfare or public assistance benefits of a 
     covered family, as defined in subparagraph (G)(i), are 
     reduced under a Federal, State, or local law regarding such 
     an assistance program because any member of the family 
     willfully failed to comply with program conditions requiring 
     participation in a self-sufficiency program or requiring work 
     activities as defined in subparagraphs (G)(ii) and (iii), the 
     family may not, for the duration of the reduction, have the 
     amount of rent or family contribution determined under this 
     subsection reduced as the result of any decrease in the 
     income of the family (to the extent that the decrease in 
     income is the result of the benefits reduction).
       ``(B) If the welfare or public assistance benefits of a 
     covered family are reduced under a Federal, State, or local 
     law regarding the welfare or public assistance program 
     because any member of the family willfully failed to comply 
     with the self-sufficiency or work activities requirements, 
     the portion of the amount of any increase in the earned 
     income of the family occurring after such reduction up to the 
     amount of the reduction for noncompliance shall not result in 
     an increase in the amount of rent or family contribution 
     determined under this subsection during the period the family 
     would otherwise be eligible for welfare or public assistance 
     benefits under the program.
       ``(C) Any covered family residing in public housing that is 
     affected by the operation of this paragraph shall have the 
     right to review the determination under this paragraph 
     through the administrative grievance procedures established 
     pursuant to section 6(k) for the public housing agency.
       ``(D) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any covered 
     family before the public housing agency providing assistance 
     under this Act on behalf of the family receives written 
     notification from the relevant welfare or public assistance 
     agency specifying that the benefits of the family have been 
     reduced because of noncompliance with self-sufficiency 
     program requirements and the level of such reduction.
       ``(E) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply in any case in which 
     the benefits of a family are reduced because the welfare or 
     public assistance program to which the Federal, State, or 
     local law relates limits the period during which benefits may 
     be provided under the program.
       ``(F) This paragraph may not be construed to authorize any 
     public housing agency to limit the duration of tenancy in a 
     public housing dwelling unit or of tenant-based assistance.
       ``(G) For purposes of this section--
       ``(i) The term `covered family' means a family that--
       ``(I) receives benefits for welfare or public assistance 
     from a State or other public agency under a program for which 
     the Federal, State, or local law relating to the program 
     requires, as a condition of eligibility for assistance under 
     the program, participation of a member of the family in a 
     self-sufficiency program or work activities; and
       ``(II) resides in a public housing dwelling unit or 
     receives assistance under section 8.
       ``(ii) The term `self-sufficiency program' means any 
     program designed to encourage, assist, train, or facilitate 
     the economic independence of participants and their families 
     or to provide work for participants, including programs for 
     job training, employment counseling, work placement, basic 
     skills training, education, workfare, money or household 
     management, apprenticeship, or other activities.
       ``(iii) The term `work activities' means--
       ``(I) unsubsidized employment;
       ``(II) subsidized private sector employment;
       ``(III) subsidized public sector employment;
       ``(IV) work experience (including work associated with the 
     refurbishing of publicly assisted housing) if sufficient 
     private sector employment is not available;
       ``(V) on-the job training;
       ``(VI) job search and job readiness assistance;
       ``(VII) community service programs;
       ``(VIII) vocational education training (not to exceed 12 
     months with respect to any individual;
       ``(IX) job skills training directly related to employment;
       ``(X) education directly related to employment, in the case 
     of a recipient who has not received a high school diploma or 
     certificate of high school equivalency;
       ``(XI) satisfactory attendance at secondary school or in a 
     course of study leading to a certificate of general 
     equivalence, in the case of a recipient who has not completed 
     secondary school or received such a certificate; and
       ``(XII) the provision of child care services to an 
     individual who is participating in a community service 
     program.''.

     SEC. 208. STREAMLINING SECTION 8 TENANT-BASED ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Repeal of Take-One, Take-All Requirement.--Section 8(t) 
     of the United States Housing Act of 1937 is hereby repealed.
       (b) Exemption From Notice Requirements for the Certificate 
     and Voucher Programs.--Section 8(c) of such Act is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (8), by inserting after ``section'' the 
     following: ``(other than a contract for tenant-based 
     assistance)''; and
       (2) in the first sentence of paragraph (9), by striking 
     ``(but not less than 90 days in the case of housing 
     certificates or vouchers under subsection (b) or (o))'' and 
     inserting ``, other than a contract for tenant-based 
     assistance under this section''.
       (c) Endless Lease.--Section 8(d)(1)(B) of such Act is 
     amended--
       (1) in clause (ii), by inserting ``during the term of the 
     lease,'' after ``(ii)''; and
       (2) in clause (iii), by striking ``provide that'' and 
     inserting ``during the term of the lease,''.
       (d) Repeal.--Section 203 of the Departments of Veterans 
     Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 is hereby repealed.

     SEC. 209. NONDISCRIMINATION AGAINST CERTIFICATE AND VOUCHER 
                   HOLDERS.

       In the case of any multifamily rental housing that is 
     receiving, or (except for insurance referred to in paragraph 
     (4)) has received within two years before the effective date 
     of this section, the benefit of Federal assistance from an 
     agency of the United States, the owner shall not refuse to 
     lease a reasonable number of units to families under the 
     tenant-based assistance program under section 8 of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 because of the status of the 
     prospective tenants as families under that program. The 
     Secretary shall establish reasonable time periods for 
     applying the requirement of this section, taking into account 
     the total amount of the assistance and the relative share of 
     the assistance compared to the total cost of financing, 
     developing, rehabilitating, or otherwise assisting a project. 
     Federal assistance for purposes of this subsection shall 
     mean--
       (1) project-based assistance under the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937;
       (2) assistance under title I of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1974;
       (3) assistance under title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez 
     National Affordable Housing Act;
       (4) mortgage insurance under the National Housing Act;
       (5) low-income housing tax credits under section 42 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
       (6) assistance under title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney 
     Homeless Assistance Act; and
       (7) assistance under any other programs designated by the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

     SEC. 210. RECAPTURE AND REUSE OF ACC PROJECT RESERVES UNDER 
                   TENANT-BASED ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       Section 8(d) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 is 
     amended by inserting at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) To the extent that the Secretary determines that the 
     amount in the ACC reserve account under a contract with a 
     public housing agency for tenant-based assistance under this 
     section is in excess of the amount needed by the agency, the 
     Secretary shall recapture such excess amount. The Secretary 
     may hold recaptured amounts in reserve until needed to amend 
     or renew such contracts with any agency.''.

     SEC. 211. EXPANDING THE COVERAGE OF THE PUBLIC AND ASSISTED 
                   HOUSING DRUG ELIMINATION ACT OF 1990.

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

[[Page H2630]]

           ``CHAPTER 2--COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS AGAINST CRIME

     ``SEC. 5121. SHORT TITLE.

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

     ``SEC. 5122. PURPOSES.

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

     ``SEC. 5123. AUTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS.

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

     ``SEC. 5125. GRANT PROCEDURES.

       ``(a) PHA's With 250 or More Units.--
       ``(1) Grants.--In each fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     make a grant under this chapter from any amounts available 
     under section 5131(b)(1) for the fiscal year to each of the 
     following public housing agencies:
       ``(A) New applicants.--Each public housing agency that owns 
     or operates 250 or more public housing dwelling units and 
     has--
       ``(i) submitted an application to the Secretary for a grant 
     for such fiscal year, which includes a 5-year crime 
     deterrence and reduction plan under paragraph (2); and
       ``(ii) had such application and plan approved by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(B) Renewals.--Each public housing agency that owns or 
     operates 250 or more public housing dwelling units and for 
     which--
       ``(i) a grant was made under this chapter for the preceding 
     Federal fiscal year;
       ``(ii) the term of the 5-year crime deterrence and 
     reduction plan applicable to such grant includes the fiscal 
     year for which the grant under this subsection is to be made; 
     and
       ``(iii) the Secretary has determined, pursuant to a 
     performance review under paragraph (4), that during the 
     preceding fiscal year the agency has substantially fulfilled 
     the requirements under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph 
     (4).
     Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), the Secretary may 
     make a grant under this chapter to a public housing agency 
     that owns or operates 250 or more public housing dwelling 
     units only if the agency includes in the application for the 
     grant information that demonstrates, to the satisfaction of 
     the Secretary, that the agency has a need for the grant 
     amounts based on generally recognized crime statistics 
     showing that (I) the crime rate for the public housing 
     developments of the agency (or the immediate neighborhoods in 
     which such developments are located) is higher than the crime 
     rate for the jurisdiction in which the agency operates, (II) 
     the crime rate for the developments (or such neighborhoods) 
     is increasing over a period of sufficient duration to 
     indicate a general trend, or (III) the operation of the 
     program under this chapter substantially contributes to the 
     reduction of crime.
       ``(2) 5-year crime deterrence and reduction plan.--Each 
     application for a grant under this subsection shall contain a 
     5-year crime deterrence and reduction plan. The plan shall be 
     developed with the participation of residents and appropriate 
     law enforcement officials. The plan shall describe, for the 
     public housing agency submitting the plan--
       ``(A) the nature of the crime problem in public housing 
     owned or operated by the public housing agency;
       ``(B) the building or buildings of the public housing 
     agency affected by the crime problem;
       ``(C) the impact of the crime problem on residents of such 
     building or buildings; and
       ``(D) the actions to be taken during the term of the plan 
     to reduce and deter such crime, which shall include actions 
     involving residents, law enforcement, and service providers.
     The term of a plan shall be the period consisting of 5 
     consecutive fiscal years, which begins with the first fiscal 
     year for which funding under this chapter is provided to 
     carry out the plan.
       ``(3) Amount.--In any fiscal year, the amount of the grant 
     for a public housing agency receiving a grant pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) shall be the amount that bears the same ratio 
     to the total amount made available under section 5131(b)(1) 
     as the total number of public dwelling units owned or 
     operated by such agency bears to the total number of dwelling 
     units owned or operated by all public housing agencies that 
     own or operate 250 or more public housing dwelling units that 
     are approved for such fiscal year.
       ``(4) Performance review.--For each fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall conduct a performance review of the 
     activities carried out by each public housing agency 
     receiving a grant pursuant to this subsection to determine 
     whether the agency--
       ``(A) has carried out such activities in a timely manner 
     and in accordance with its 5-year crime deterrence and 
     reduction plan; and
       ``(B) has a continuing capacity to carry out such plan in a 
     timely manner.
       ``(5) Submission of applications.--The Secretary shall 
     establish such deadlines and requirements for submission of 
     applications under this subsection.
       ``(6) Review and determination.--The Secretary shall review 
     each application submitted under this subsection upon 
     submission and shall approve the application unless the 
     application and the 5-year crime deterrence and reduction 
     plan are inconsistent with the purposes of this chapter or 
     any requirements established by the Secretary or the 
     information in the application or plan is not substantially 
     complete. Upon approving or determining not to approve an 
     application and plan submitted under this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall notify the public housing agency submitting 
     the application and plan of such approval or disapproval.
       ``(7) Disapproval of applications.--If the Secretary 
     notifies an agency that the application and plan of the 
     agency is not approved, not later than the expiration of the 
     15-day period beginning upon such notice of disapproval, the 
     Secretary shall also notify the agency, in writing, of the 
     reasons for the disapproval, the actions that the agency 
     could take to comply with the criteria for approval, and the 
     deadlines for such actions.
       ``(8) Failure to approve or disapprove.--If the Secretary 
     fails to notify an agency of approval or disapproval of an 
     application and plan submitted under this subsection before 
     the expiration of the 60-day period beginning upon the 
     submission of the plan or fails to provide notice under 
     paragraph (7) within the 15-day period under such paragraph 
     to an agency whose application has been disapproved, the 
     application and plan shall be considered to have been 
     approved for purposes of this section.
       ``(b) PHA's With Fewer Than 250 Units and Owners of 
     Federally Assisted Low-Income Housing.--
       ``(1) Applications and plans.--To be eligible to receive a 
     grant under this chapter, a public housing agency that owns 
     or operates fewer than 250 public housing dwelling units or 
     an owner of federally assisted low-income housing shall 
     submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such 
     manner, and accompanied by such additional information as the 
     Secretary may require. The application shall include a plan 
     for addressing the problem of crime in and around the housing 
     for which the application is submitted, describing in detail 
     activities to be conducted during the fiscal year for which 
     the grant is requested.
       ``(2) Grants for pha's with fewer than 250 units.--In each 
     fiscal year the Secretary may, to the extent amounts are 
     available under section 5131(b)(2), make grants under this 
     chapter to public housing agencies that own or operate fewer 
     than 250 public housing dwelling units and have submitted 
     applications under paragraph (1) that the Secretary

[[Page H2631]]

     has approved pursuant to the criteria under paragraph (4).
       ``(3) Grants for federally assisted low-income housing.--In 
     each fiscal year the Secretary may, to the extent amounts are 
     available under section 5131(b)(3), make grants under this 
     chapter to owners of federally assisted low-income housing 
     that have submitted applications under paragraph (1) that the 
     Secretary has approved pursuant to the criteria under 
     paragraphs (4) and (5).
       ``(4) Criteria for approval of applications.--The Secretary 
     shall determine whether to approve each application under 
     this subsection on the basis of--
       ``(A) the extent of the crime problem in and around the 
     housing for which the application is made;
       ``(B) the quality of the plan to address the crime problem 
     in the housing for which the application is made;
       ``(C) the capability of the applicant to carry out the 
     plan; and
       ``(D) the extent to which the tenants of the housing, the 
     local government, local community-based nonprofit 
     organizations, local tenant organizations representing 
     residents of neighboring projects that are owned or assisted 
     by the Secretary, and the local community support and 
     participate in the design and implementation of the 
     activities proposed to be funded under the application.
     In each fiscal year, the Secretary may give preference to 
     applications under this subsection for housing made by 
     applicants who received a grant for such housing for the 
     preceding fiscal year under this subsection or under the 
     provisions of this chapter as in effect immediately before 
     the date of the enactment of the Housing Opportunity and 
     Responsibility Act of 1997.
       ``(5) Additional criteria for federally assisted low-income 
     housing.--In addition to the selection criteria under 
     paragraph (4), the Secretary may establish other criteria for 
     evaluating applications submitted by owners of federally 
     assisted low-income housing, except that such additional 
     criteria shall be designed only to reflect--
       ``(A) relevant differences between the financial resources 
     and other characteristics of public housing agencies and 
     owners of federally assisted low-income housing; or
       ``(B) relevant differences between the problem of crime in 
     public housing administered by such authorities and the 
     problem of crime in federally assisted low-income housing.''.
       (d) Definitions.--Section 5126 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act 
     of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11905) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2);
       (2) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``section'' before 
     ``221(d)(4)'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) (as so amended) 
     as paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Public housing agency.--The term `public housing 
     agency' has the meaning given the term in section 3 of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937.''.
       (e) Implementation.--Section 5127 of the Anti-Drug Abuse 
     Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11906) is amended by striking 
     ``Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act'' and 
     inserting ``Public Housing Management Reform Act of 1997''.
       (f) Reports.--Section 5128 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 
     1988 (42 U.S.C. 11907) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``drug-related crime in'' and inserting 
     ``crime in and around''; and
       (2) by striking ``described in section 5125(a)'' and 
     inserting ``for the grantee submitted under subsection (a) or 
     (b) of section 5125, as applicable''.
       (g) Funding and Program Sunset.--Chapter 2 of subtitle C of 
     title V of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 is amended by 
     striking section 5130 (42 U.S.C. 11909) and inserting the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 5130. FUNDING.

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

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

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

``Sec. 5122. Purposes.'';

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

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

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

``Sec. 5130. Funding.''.

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

     SEC. 212. STUDY REGARDING RENTAL ASSISTANCE.

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

     SEC. 301. SCREENING OF APPLICANTS.

       (a) Ineligibility Because of Past Evictions.--Any household 
     or member of a household evicted from federally assisted 
     housing (as defined in section 305) by reason of drug-related 
     criminal activity (as defined in section 305) or for other 
     serious violations of the terms or conditions of the lease 
     shall not be eligible for federally assisted housing--
       (1) in the case of eviction by reason of drug-related 
     criminal activity, for a period of not less than three years 
     from the date of the eviction unless the evicted member of 
     the household successfully completes a rehabilitation 
     program; and
       (2) for other evictions, for a reasonable period of time as 
     determined by the public housing agency or owner of the 
     federally assisted housing, as applicable.
     The requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) may be waived if 
     the circumstances leading to eviction no longer exist.
       (b) Ineligibility of Illegal Drug Users and Alcohol 
     Abusers.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a 
     public housing agency or an owner of federally assisted 
     housing, or both, as determined by the Secretary, shall 
     establish standards that prohibit admission to the program or 
     admission to federally assisted housing for any household 
     with a member--
       (1) who the public housing agency or the owner determines 
     is engaging in the illegal use of a controlled substance; or
       (2) with respect to whom the public housing agency or the 
     owner determines that it has reasonable cause to believe that 
     such household member's illegal use (or pattern of illegal 
     use) of a controlled substance, or abuse (or pattern of 
     abuse) of alcohol would interfere with the health, safety, or 
     right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other 
     residents.
       (c) Consideration of Rehabilitation.--In determining 
     whether, pursuant to subsection (b)(2), to deny admission to 
     the program or to federally assisted housing to any household 
     based on a pattern of illegal use of a controlled substance 
     or a pattern of abuse of alcohol by a household member, a 
     public housing agency or an owner may consider whether such 
     household member--

[[Page H2632]]

       (1) has successfully completed an accredited drug or 
     alcohol rehabilitation program (as applicable) and is no 
     longer engaging in the illegal use of a controlled substance 
     or abuse of alcohol (as applicable);
       (2) has otherwise been rehabilitated successfully and is no 
     longer engaging in the illegal use of a controlled substance 
     or abuse of alcohol (as applicable); or
       (3) is participating in an accredited drug or alcohol 
     rehabilitation program (as applicable) and is no longer 
     engaging in the illegal use of a controlled substance or 
     abuse of alcohol (as applicable).
       (d) Authority To Deny Admission to the Program or to 
     Federally Assisted Housing for Certain Criminal Offenders.--
     In addition to the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) and 
     in addition to any other authority to screen applicants, in 
     selecting among applicants for admission to the program or to 
     federally assisted housing, if the public housing agency or 
     owner of such housing, as applicable, determines that an 
     applicant or any member of the applicant's household is or 
     was, during a reasonable time preceding the date when the 
     applicant household would otherwise be selected for 
     admission, engaged in any drug-related or violent criminal 
     activity or other criminal activity which would adversely 
     affect the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of 
     the premises by other residents, the owner or public housing 
     agency may--
       (1) deny such applicant admission to the program or to 
     federally assisted housing; and
       (2) after expiration of the reasonable period beginning 
     upon such activity, require the applicant, as a condition of 
     admission to the program or to federally assisted housing, to 
     submit to the owner or public housing agency evidence 
     sufficient (as the Secretary shall by regulation provide) to 
     ensure that the individual or individuals in the applicant's 
     household who engaged in such criminal activity for which 
     denial was made under this subsection have not engaged in any 
     such criminal activity during such reasonable time.
       (e) Authority To Require Access to Criminal Records.----A 
     public housing agency may require, as a condition of 
     providing admission to the public housing program, that each 
     adult member of the household provide a signed, written 
     authorization for the public housing agency to obtain records 
     described in section 304 regarding such member of the 
     household from the National Crime Information Center, police 
     departments, and other law enforcement agencies.

     SEC. 302. TERMINATION OF TENANCY AND ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Termination of Tenancy and Assistance for Illegal Drug 
     Users and Alcohol Abusers.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, a public housing agency or an owner of 
     federally assisted housing, as applicable, shall establish 
     standards or lease provisions for continued assistance or 
     occupancy in federally assisted housing that allow a public 
     housing agency or the owner, as applicable, to terminate the 
     tenancy or assistance for any household with a member--
       (1) who the public housing agency or owner determines is 
     engaging in the illegal use of a controlled substance; or
       (2) whose illegal use of a controlled substance, or whose 
     abuse of alcohol, is determined by the public housing agency 
     or owner to interfere with the health, safety, or right to 
     peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents.
       (b) Termination of Assistance for Serious Lease 
     Violation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     public housing agency must terminate tenant-based assistance 
     for all household members if the household is evicted from 
     assisted housing for serious violation of the lease.

     SEC. 303. LEASE REQUIREMENTS.

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

     SEC. 304. AVAILABILITY OF CRIMINAL RECORDS FOR PUBLIC HOUSING 
                   TENANT SCREENING AND EVICTION.

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

     SEC. 305. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title, the following definitions shall 
     apply:
       (1) Federally assisted housing.--The term ``federally 
     assisted housing'' means a unit in--
       (A) public housing under the United States Housing Act of 
     1937;
       (B) housing assisted under section 8 of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 including both tenant-based assistance 
     and project-based assistance;
       (C) housing that is assisted under section 202 of the 
     Housing Act of 1959 (as amended by section 801 of the 
     Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act);
       (D) housing that is assisted under section 202 of the 
     Housing Act of 1959, as such section existed before enactment 
     of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act;
       (E) housing that is assisted under section 811 of the 
     Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act;
       (F) housing financed by a loan or mortgage insured under 
     section 221(d)(3) of the National Housing Act that bears 
     interest at a rate determined under the proviso of section 
     221(d)(5) of such Act;
       (G) housing with a mortgage insured, assisted, or held by 
     the Secretary or a State or State agency under section 236 of 
     the National Housing Act; and

[[Page H2633]]

       (H) for purposes only of subsections 301(c), 301(d), 303, 
     and 304, housing assisted under section 515 of the Housing 
     Act of 1949.
       (2) Drug-related criminal activity.--The term ``drug-
     related criminal activity'' means the illegal manufacture, 
     sale, distribution, use, or possession with intent to 
     manufacture, sell, distribute, or use, of a controlled 
     substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)).
       (3) Owner.--The term ``owner'' means, with respect to 
     federally assisted housing, the entity or private person, 
     including a cooperative or public housing agency, that has 
     the legal right to lease or sublease dwelling units in such 
     housing.

     SEC. 306. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Consolidation of Public Housing One Strike 
     Provisions.--Section 6 of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937 is amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (l)(4) and (l)(5) and the last 
     sentence of subsection (l), and redesignating paragraphs (6) 
     and (7) as paragraphs (4) and (5);
       (2) by striking subsection (q); and
       (3) by striking subsection (r).
       (b) Consolidation of Section 8 One Strike Provisions.--
     Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 
     1437f) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (d)(1)(B)(ii) and 
     (d)(1)(B)(iii), and redesignating clauses (iv) and (v) as 
     clauses (ii) and (iii); and
       (2) by striking subsection (f)(5) and redesignating 
     paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs (5) and (6), 
     respectively.
       (c) Consolidation of One Strike Eligibility Provisions.--
     Section 16 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 is 
     amended by striking subsection (e).
                     TITLE IV--TREATMENT OF AMOUNTS

     SEC. 401. REQUIREMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, any 
     provision of this Act or of any amendment made by this Act 
     that otherwise provides amounts or makes amounts available 
     shall be effective only to the extent or in such amounts as 
     are or have been provided in advance in appropriation Acts.

  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to discussions I have 
had with the gentleman from Massachusetts, I ask unanimous consent that 
a time limitation be set on the substitute amendment that is offered by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts for a total of 60 minutes, 30 minutes 
controlled by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and 30 
minutes controlled by myself, with no amendments thereto.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] will control 30 minutes and the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Lazio] will control 30 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this substitute, I think, gets to the cause and the 
hopes and the dreams of so many of the tens of thousands of very low-
income Americans that public housing and assisted housing is designed 
to protect and provide basic shelter to.
  Sponsors of H.R. 2 are trying to portray the choice between the bill 
that has been proposed by the other side of the aisle and the 
Democratic substitute as status quo versus reform; between policies 
which doom the very poor to poverty and despair and policies which give 
them hope.
  It is patently absurd. The Democratic substitute meets all of the 
goals that the Republicans articulate. It contains all of the reforms 
that we need in public and assisted housing. The difference between the 
substitute and H.R. 2 is that H.R. 2 includes a number of radical 
policies which abandon our commitment to the poor, create more 
political influence in housing, and create new and unneeded 
bureaucracies.
  The National League of Cities, the very group of people that the 
sponsors of H.R. 2 claim are going to welcome the block granting of the 
housing funding, actually oppose the bill because they recognize the 
terrible and damning results that have occurred as a result of the 
politicization of housing funds at the local level.
  Study after study has been done that indicate that once the funding 
for housing becomes politicized, once the housing authorities become 
the dumping grounds of political appointments, that they have, in 
effect, lost their capabilities of dealing with the housing needs in 
the local community.
  The National League of Cities also urged Members to support the 
superior substitute bill which is offered by, guess who, Joe Kennedy. 
The Clinton administration opposes H.R. 2. The administration formally 
opposes H.R. 2 and it has listed eight specific provisions that should 
be amended. All eight administration concerns are met through the 
provisions of the Democratic substitute.
  Public housing groups themselves do not support H.R. 2. If we go 
through, almost every one of the public housing associations, including 
NAHRO, have now opposed it.
  The substitute eliminates the work disincentives. We have had a 
perverse situation occurring with regard to public housing over the 
course of the last several years where, in fact, we have had a 
disincentive for people in public housing to go to work because, if 
they do, more of their income would be captured as a result of the 
elimination of the Brooke amendment. We have continued the Brooke 
amendment. We have called for flat rents with income disregards and 
income phase-ins.
  The Democratic substitute increases the working poor in public 
housing. We will hear time and time again that what the Democrats are 
trying to do is go back to the same-old, same-old policies which ended 
up with these great monstrosities of public housing where nothing but 
the poorest of the poor were warehoused. That is not true.
  I wish that the Members of this House could listen to this debate 
without hearing Democrat or Republican, but just listening to the 
substance of what we are talking about. The difference between the 
Republican version and the Democratic version is very simple. The 
Republicans over the next 10 years will throw 80 percent of the very 
poor out of public housing. Eighty percent of the very poor will be 
boomed out of public housing. There will not be a requirement that they 
will be taking single, very low-income people into public housing.
  What we will do then is eliminate all the standards with regard to 
assisted housing. So what we end up with is we end up solving the 
problems of housing in America by abandoning the poor. That is no 
solution to the housing problems of our country. That is abandonment of 
our basic responsibilities. We can look great to the rest of the 
Congress and to the people all across the country by eliminating all 
the problems in public housing, but we do it by fundamentally turning 
our back on the poorest and most vulnerable amongst us. And that is, I 
think, an abandonment of our basic responsibilities.
  This substitutes recognizes the fact we need to have more working 
families involved in public housing. And over the period of the next 10 
years under the bill that we have proposed, 50 percent of the people in 
public housing would be very, very low-income people and 50 percent of 
the people would be working families.
  What we do not want to do is sentence working families into rental 
programs. We want, where we can, to encourage home ownership. Families 
that earn $25 or $30 or $40,000 a year worth of income in every city 
across America are now eligible for private home ownership programs 
provided through our banks and insurance companies and others.
  That is what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and all the rest of the 
organizations are set up to provide; home ownership. Why sentence 
people that can afford to own their own homes into becoming tenants? 
What we are trying to suggest is that there are some very low-income 
people.
  We have cut the housing budget in this country from close to $30 
billion, $28 billion, down to just $20 billion. We have cut the 
homeless budget of America by 25 percent, and then we come back and we 
say now that we have done that, in order to keep the local housing 
authorities moving forward, what we really need to do is throw the poor 
people out of public housing. We need to jack up the rents so that the 
public housing authorities do not go under and, by the way, we will cut 
the homeless budget. It is a crazy thing to do. It does not solve the 
problems of America, but it does solve the problem of the Congress.
  So I ask my colleagues to please consider looking at what is actually 
contained in the substitute, recognizing we have gotten rid of the work 
disincentives, recognizing we do come up with a much better mix of 
working families and the poor in low-income housing, and recognizing 
that if we

[[Page H2634]]

want to take a radical approach of block granting the funding, of 
making additional bureaucratic responsibilities, of telling people they 
have to come up with personal improvement programs and voluntary 
mandatory work requirements, then we go ahead and put in and institute 
what H.R. 2 calls for.
  But if we are really interested in fixing up public housing, if we 
are really interested in making certain that we take care of the very 
poor, there is nothing wrong with targeting the meager funds we put 
into public housing. There is nothing wrong with making sure that those 
meager funds end up serving the poorest and most vulnerable people in 
America.
  So I urge my colleagues to support the substitute amendment to H.R. 2 
and oppose the provisions of this radical approach that has been 
authored by the other side of the aisle.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues that they ought not to just be 
listening to this debate but reading the bill itself, because, clearly, 
there have been some misrepresentations about what this bill does.
  We do not have to go very far. Just read it in black and white where 
it says, in the bill, that at least 35 percent of all the units in 
public housing must be reserved for those people below 30 percent of 
median income, keeping no public housing authority from ensuring that 
every single unit that it has, if it wants, can go to the poorest of 
the poor.
  But we are saying that if one has a minimum wage job and just happens 
to be married to someone else who has a minimum wage job, then that 
individual ought also to be able to participate in it. And under this 
substitute those individuals would be shut out.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts indicates that people would be 
thrown out. There is absolutely nothing in this bill that would throw 
out one low-income person from public housing. Not one. Not one.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts mentions that the rents will go up. 
How? Under current law, under current law people's rents are tied to 
their income in this manner. People must pay 30 percent of their income 
in rent. They cannot pay less than that. They must pay 30 percent of 
their income in rent.
  Under this bill, under H.R. 2, tenants will have an annual choice to 
pay either up to 30 percent, and it might be lower, or to choose a flat 
rent that is predetermined by the housing authority. And in that sense, 
for many residents who are working, that will be a significantly lower 
rent than exists under current law. And under no condition, under no 
condition under this bill will people pay a dime more than they are 
paying right now.
  So the characterizations here on this floor must mesh with the 
language in the bill. In fact, the Kennedy substitute is nothing more 
than a watered down version of the administration's bill, which also 
seeks a very meek, mild, look-the-other-way approach to the failure of 
public housing in some of our Nation's largest cities.
  We cannot afford to look the other way. We cannot afford to condemn 
another generation of teenagers and young people to the type of public 
housing that exists in some of our cities where they do not have a 
chance for hope and opportunity. We say give people a choice, reward 
work, make sure that families can stay together and protect levels of 
excellence.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that this is the first 
time the gentleman has ever accused me of a meek and mild approach to 
anything. I would just point out that if Members read not just the big 
print but the small print of this bill, they will find that under the 
fungibility rules that have been proposed, there is not a single unit 
of affordable housing for the very poor that has to go by any public 
housing authority to the very poor. Second, the way the rents get 
jacked up is by virtue of the fact that we are going to create an 
enormous incentive by the local housing authority to go and get 
wealthier tenants. That means greater amounts of rent are going to be 
generated because of the incomes of the families. I am not suggesting 
the individual rents on the people are going to go up, but what we are 
doing is creating a policy that funnels wealthier and wealthier people 
into public housing itself. That is what the problem with the bill is.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman from Massachusetts calls wealthy are 
people that are making minimum wage or 50 cents or a dollar more than 
minimum wage. That is where we have broad disagreement, where the 
gentleman looks at people who are working for minimum wage in entry-
level jobs and sees them as wealthy and able to support rent at a 
market rate. In fact I look at it and many Members who support these 
efforts look at this and say that people who are struggling to work, 
who accept the challenge of a minimum wage job, should not be shut out. 
They should be helped. This is one of the dividing lines between, I 
think, our two different perspectives. In fact, under the requirements 
of this bill, the public housing authority must set aside at least 40 
percent of its units for vouchers for the poorest of the poor, at least 
35 percent of its units, and yes, it can mix and match between those 
two, but in either case it must meet the minimum standards of meeting 
the demands of the poorest of the poor, people making below 30 percent 
of median income.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Leach], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services.
  Mr. LEACH. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me go first to the principle of this bill under the 
Kennedy amendment that I think is very important. While the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] earlier in the debate in prior days 
had offered an amendment to increase the funding by 50 percent, his 
amendment on the floor today, as I understand it, has no increase in 
funding. So what we are dealing with is the same dollar levels as the 
committee bill, is that correct?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will yield, there is 
no funding whatsoever contained in this particular provision. We would 
be happy, if the chairman wanted to increase it back to the funding 
levels of last year, to entertain an amendment to our amendment.
  Mr. LEACH. I would recapture my time.
  I would only stress to the committee and to the Members that these 
are the same numbers as the committee product.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, it is not the same.
  Mr. LEACH. There is no effort to raise or decrease in the gentleman's 
amendment. I just make this clear to the committee.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield 
just for a clarification?
  Mr. LEACH. I have a limited amount of time. I would like to ask to 
proceed at my own pace.
  Mr. Chairman, we also would stress that the committee's numbers are 
precisely the same numbers as the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, whose secretary is Mr. Cuomo, the gentleman's brother-in-
law.
  The other point I would like to make here is that it has been my 
impression as a Member who has been here almost two decades that one of 
the reasons the total budget has to be out of whack in virtually every 
area of Federal spending, including housing, is the terrific pressure 
from each constituency group's perspective that has been brought to 
bear. When Members establish reputations for always increasing a 
program, they come to be known as the person that most defends that 
particular constituency and, therefore, there is a particular 
appreciation from that constituency that is extended.
  But when numbers get out of whack, the fact of the matter is that the 
sum budget totals can be at times counterproductive. So from a 
constituency's point of view, there might well be a desire for more 
numbers, despite the fact that the general public is often 
disadvantaged. That is why we have these huge deficits and that is one 
of the reasons why the growth in the economy

[[Page H2635]]

has been less impressive than otherwise.
  I would stress to the Members of this body that when the Republican 
Party came into power in 1994, there was an effort to constrain the 
budget, including housing. When that effort came to pass, and it 
usually takes about a year for effects to spin out in the economy, it 
is impressive that American economic growth has increased.
  Based on increased American economic growth, there are now more 
revenues coming into the treasury that have made possible the recent 
budget agreement between the executive and legislative branches that 
has just come to pass, based on new projections of more revenue coming 
in.
  If we have budgets that are increasingly out of whack, we are not 
only being unfair to young people in particular, who will be paying 
Federal debt obligations back for the next 30 years, but we will have 
less economic growth and thus fewer jobs in the economy.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEACH. I will not yield at this point to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. I have been very patient, and the 
gentleman has interrupted every statement I have made in the last 2 
weeks. I would ask for the gentleman's consideration. At the end of a 
debate it is often considered etiquette to let both sides express their 
perspective uninterrupted.
  I would ask the Chair to be allowed to continue and not to have this 
time counted against me.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. Riggs]. The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. LEACH. I would also like to address the issue of compassion. 
Sometimes it is argued that to have more numbers is extremely 
compassionate. This side has been accused in this debate earlier of 
being steely.
  The fact of the matter is it can be more compassionate to have more 
economic growth. There can be philosophical differences that can be 
meted out on various issues at various points in time. But this side is 
proceeding under the obligation to be more constrained, to operate 
within budget agreements, to operate in coordination with the 
administration under a belief that to increase spending would be 
uncompassionate, not compassionate.
  Finally, let me just say that in my view the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Lazio] has brought to this floor a signally reform-oriented bill 
that will establish him as one of the great architects of a new housing 
approach, and I think this entire House should give the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Lazio] a great deal of credit.
  In this regard, I would also commend the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Kennedy] for bringing out an amendment that from the other side's 
perspective I think is quite credible. I would hope our side would not 
be persuaded by it.
  In this regard, though, I would ask the other side to recognize that 
this committee has brought out a number 100 percent identical with the 
administration's request, general precepts largely in symmetry with the 
administration's request. In that process I would hope that on final 
passage the other side would give this committee the benefit of the 
doubt in working with the administration, in coming out with the 
precise budget numbers. If the committee works with the administration 
and then is voted against, it is very awkward for Congress to proceed 
on a reasonable basis.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds 
to respond.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out to the gentleman that 
while he has been showing such great leadership in terms of allowing 
the housing budget to be cut back, we have not seen that amongst a lot 
of other chairmen in his party. Other chairmen in his party come in 
here and request $14 billion more in the defense bill than the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff required. Not a single penny came out of any of the 
funds that went to any of the big corporations in America. Eighty 
percent of the budget cuts which came out of his party affected the 
very poor and that is who is affected by this bill. That is a shame on 
this Congress, it is a shame on the gentleman, and it is a shame on the 
administration that they have not come in with more money for housing.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach].
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I would only respond briefly. I think 
perspective has to be applied. The gentleman is correct that a year ago 
the budget came in less than the prior year. But this budget is 
precisely the same as the prior year, precisely the same as the 
administration has requested.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds. 
This year's is the same as last year's which was cut by $8 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Gonzalez], the former chairman of the committee.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a much longer perspective on housing problems 
than most of my colleagues. As a younger man, I helped develop the 
first public housing in San Antonio. Today there are thousands of 
people living in San Antonio, housed in safe, decent, affordable public 
housing.
  My colleagues on the Republican side have drawn a grotesquely 
distorted picture of public housing in America today.
  The truth is that the majority of public housing is safe, it is 
decent, and it is well-run. Are there problems? Of course there are. 
But I say to my colleagues that our cities will not be made better by 
excluding poor families from public housing. The truth is that 
excluding the poorest from public housing only means that they will 
live in the meanest neighborhoods, on the meanest streets. To pretend 
that we are solving the problems of public housing by reinventing 
Hell's Kitchen is obviously very foolish.
  What this bill does is to solve the financial problems of the local 
housing agencies by encouraging them to get rid of the poorest of the 
tenants as rapidly as possible, by a variety of means: excluding them 
from admission in the first place, or making it easier to get rid of 
them if they are already there.
  I say to my colleagues that in the meanest and most miserable of 
circumstances, people have pride. They want dignity and they certainly 
want a better life.
  In San Antonio, one of the most common types of tenements was a 
wooden, tin-roof lean-to in the form of a square with an open area in 
the center. Around that courtyard would be single rooms. The only water 
was a common tap in the courtyard. There might be only one pit privy 
serving 50 or more people. It was squalid, unhealthy, disgraceful, and 
I hate to even recall those episodes. However, that was the only thing 
affordable.
  This is the kind of slum that public housing helped to eradicate. I 
say to my colleagues that the worst public housing in my city is 
better, it is cleaner, and it is safer than those that we called 
corrals, for this is what they were called.
  A few years ago, I visited farm worker housing all over America, and 
some of it was worse than a chicken coop--two of the places I visited 
had been built to house Nazi prisoners of war. The people who live in 
such places are not lazy or shiftless, as my Republican friends seem to 
think. These are in fact people who look desperately for work, and who 
work desperately hard. One of them cried to me: ``Mr. Gonzalez, I am so 
ashamed. We do not want to live this way, but this is all we can do.''
  My friends, the people who live in the worst of public housing do not 
want to live that way, either. Their choice is to accept what they 
have, or to go to conditions that are even worse.
  The solution to public housing problems is not to throw out the poor, 
but to build decent housing.
  The substitute offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts makes 
sense. It tries to do the best possible for the greatest possible 
number.
  The substitutes recognizes and rewards work, so that residents of 
public housing will be able to keep more of what they earn.
  The substitute improves crime control programs in public housing, and 
it allows local housing agencies greater flexibility, while at the same 
time demanding greater accountability from them.
  I remind you: in my city, the very worst of public housing is better 
than the conditions which that housing replaced. If we want to solve 
the social problems of the poor, we have

[[Page H2636]]

to provide opportunities, and not merely demand that the victims heal 
themselves.
  Support the substitute. It makes sense, and it works better. Before 
you vote for this bill, think about the people I know, who live in tin 
sheds with dirt floors and no kitchen or plumbing, and who work hard--
and who feel shamed, because they feel the scorn of those who say: 
``they deserve their fate.'' My friends, there but for the grace of 
God, you would be.
  Vote for the substitute.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, just before yielding to the 
gentleman from Nebraska, if I can yield myself 15 seconds and just 
note, it is very curious in talking about dollars that just 2 weeks 
ago, over $5 billion of unspent money was uncovered hidden under rocks 
over at HUD that could have been spent to deal with some of these 
issues. The issue here is not just money, it is about management, it is 
about integrity.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. 
Bereuter], a distinguished member of the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thought it might be helpful to explain 
the kind of reforms that are not contained in the Kennedy substitute. I 
want to go over those major reforms that are in the legislation but not 
in the Kennedy substitute.
  The Kennedy substitute does not provide for family rent choice. It 
does not target fungibility between public housing and choice-based 
programs. It does not provide for the home rule flexibility grant 
option which we have in title IV. It does not include the accreditation 
board. It is controversial, but the House has spoken on that issue. It 
does not provide the Traficant CDBG antipiracy and regional cooperation 
provisions. It does not include the Jackson-Lee amendment to section 3 
regarding resident employment. It does not require consultation with 
affected areas in settlement of litigation. It does not require the 
Klink-Doyle consultation with local governments' requirement regarding 
the building of new public housing. It does not provide for block grant 
provisions for small PHAs. It does not have improvements in the least 
in grievance compromise. It does not include technical corrections to 
legal alien provisions governing public housing. It does not include 
the prohibition of national occupancy standards. Those occupancy 
standards, I would suggest, should be a matter of local decisions, 
local regulations or at most, State law.
  Now these are the very important reform elements that are contained 
in H.R. 2 but which are not contained in the Kennedy substitute. I 
think they are very important. I think, therefore, these reforms are 
very necessary for public housing authorities and for the residents 
that live in them and for the people that attempt to run our public 
housing agencies and for the governing bodies in those jurisdictions.
  Mr. Chairman, we should reject the Kennedy substitute and support the 
passage of the legislation.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], my good friend.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, let me start by saying that 
we have never postured this as a choice between just the worst possible 
bill in the world and the status quo. It was my colleagues on the other 
side who did that. This bill is marginally better than it was last 
year, and I am going to vote against it because it just has some 
terrible provisions in it, even though some of the things in it are 
good.
  We should support the substitute, the Kennedy substitute, because it 
is better, but none of us should talk ourselves into believing that 
either of these bills is going to solve all the problems of the poor as 
some of my colleagues seem to be insinuating their bill is going to do. 
These bills are not even going to solve the housing problems of the 
poor, much less all of the problems of the poor. But the substitute of 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is light years better 
because it puts emphasis on the drug elimination grant program, which 
is actually the thing I hear the most when I go home: How can we deal 
with drugs in these public housing units? What help can the Federal 
Government give us to deal with this problem? We encourage under Mr. 
Kennedy's substitute community service, but we do not mandate it. We do 
not force people to go out there and work for nothing, which is what 
the main bill does, and we encourage an income mix in both public 
housing and in the voucher program, and we try to do it in such a way 
that we do not end up pitting the very poor against the working poor, 
which is what ends up happening under the main bill here.
  All of those things are compelling reasons that this Kennedy 
substitute is a better alternative than the underlying bill. It is not 
a choice between doing nothing, maintaining the status quo, but this is 
a better substitute, and we should support it.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] the former Governor 
and member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I agree to some degree with the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] who just spoke. I do not think either of 
these bills is going to be the be all and end all in terms of solving 
the problems with respect to poor people or people in housing in 
general. But we have to look at which one would do better, and I come 
down strongly on the side of H.R. 2.
  I believe that we should look back to the welfare reform bill last 
year in which there were dire predictions by many people on this floor 
that this would be a disaster for the poor; if we pass this piece of 
legislation, they would be held poor forever and perhaps even poorer, 
and there would be all manner of problems in this country.
  Now I seem to read more and more articles and hear more and more 
people begin to say it has given hope and opportunity to individuals, 
and that may not be universally true, and I am sure it is not, and 
anecdotally there are probably stories against it. But the same thing 
is true, I think, of this housing bill. I have visited housing in 
Delaware many, many times, I have spoken to the people running it, and 
I frankly think they need more flexibility in terms of how they are 
running housing authorities there and across this country. I believe 
that a greater mixture of individuals, both by neighborhoods and who 
lives in particular areas, is extremely important in trying to help 
with the development of the community. I happen not to be opposed to 
the community service. I believe that is an opportunity for individuals 
and so becomes important as well. I think some of the operating formula 
incentives are going to make housing authorities better than they are 
now. It is going to make them think a little bit more and, I think, 
manage better.
  And there are a lot of things that we can talk about here, Mr. 
Chairman, as we look at this bill. We go down and compare details to 
details, and I give a lot of credit frankly to both sides because I 
think people care a lot about housing. But I believe that the bottom 
line is that we truly need to introduce change into the housing 
programs in this country. They have been without change now for years, 
in fact decades, and the time has come to provide that opportunity, and 
I think H.R. 2 does that.
  And I think that the minority side has been listened to. There are a 
lot of amendments in this legislation. Most of them are from the 
minority side. Most of them I think are good, by the way. They have 
been adopted and are part of the bill.
  So for that reason I would encourage support for H.R. 2 by everybody, 
once we have taken care of the amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], my good friend.
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kennedy substitute, 
and it is true, I think, that this bill that the committee has 
presented as representing a better product than last year, but I think 
there are some fundamental problems with the bill, there are some 
fundamental problems.
  I have, as an example, when we look at the 3,400 public housing 
authorities

[[Page H2637]]

and we talk about a hundred of them having problems, and the fact is 
that HUD, we wanted HUD to reassert itself and take more control of the 
public housing authority. But what this bill does is to block grant, 
send a lot of money back to the same public housing authorities, and as 
if that were not enough, they have had a lot of autonomy and they have 
sometimes failed, but most of them have been pretty good.
  But if that were not enough, we are sending back a lot more 
requirements. Because they have trouble running the housing, doing 
income verification and all the other problems we are saying, and in 
addition to that we are going to put in place a mandatory community 
service program. As my colleagues know, the fact is we passed welfare 
reform. I happen to be someone that voted for it. I think there are a 
lot of problems with the legal immigrants and some other issues with 
it, but the fact is we do not have to reinvent it in the housing bill, 
and we sure do not have to give that responsibility to those public 
housing authorities to run a whole program on community service.
  Mr. Chairman, it does not make any sense, just like it does not make 
any sense, we have got one HUD, we do not need an accreditation board, 
we do not need a two-headed HUD. One is enough. But if my colleagues 
want someone to compete up there, to be fighting and disputing it, that 
is a problem.
  How about income verification? Do we need to raise the incomes in 
public housing? The average income for a family now is about $6,700. I 
point out to my subcommittee chairman that the minimum wage pays about 
10 grand a year, but this bill does not go just to 17 percent of 
median, which is $6,500; it goes up to 80 percent. And what we are 
saying, if our colleagues are worried about minimum wage, that is 
closer to 25 percent of median than 80. Eighty percent is 2\1/2\ times 
the poverty rate. In some communities that is $40,000. So check the 
numbers, look at what is being done.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that if that is what our colleagues want to do 
is deal with those in minimum wage and to provide working poor with 
housing, then we have to deal with it. But we have 16 million people in 
this country; 16 million families, pardon me, that qualify for public 
housing, we got about 4 million units. And so we have to differentiate 
in how we are going to do this. Do they need more flexibility? Do we 
need to deal with one to one? Yes.
  But the Kennedy approach is the right approach. We do not need 
another HUD. We do not need another reinvention of welfare reform and 
another job for the public housing authorities. We need to keep HUD in 
charge and hold them accountable, talk about money under rocks that 
they found. I will tell my colleagues, go over to the Defense 
Department and they will find a lot more money under rocks. But the 
fact is if they are going to reach in and take that money back when 
trying to hold people accountable in terms of how to use it and then 
complain about the fact that they are doing that, and they are going to 
take and spend it, I will tell my colleagues that we are going to end 
up short when we go to reauthorize the section 8 programs or when we 
reauthorize some of the other programs.
  So I think the Kennedy substitute is the best option we have. I 
appreciate the fact that the chairman has tried to work through some of 
these issues, but we have not got there. So I think we better vote for 
the Kennedy substitute today.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention in response to the comments of 
the gentleman from Minnesota that were completely accurate, we are 
talking about the family with two minimum wage jobs. The gentleman, I 
think, was referring to families with one minimum wage job, and people 
with two minimum wage jobs, a family where a husband and wife working 
at minimum wage, would effectively be shut out of vouchers under this 
substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Baker], a distinguished member of the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services.
  Mr. BAKER. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this is indeed a pivotal moment for us. With the 
consideration of the Kennedy substitute, Members can vote to support it 
and fight to cling onto what simply has not worked.
  There are, in fact, public housing authorities around the country who 
have used appropriate management skills, and there are public housing 
units which are well kept, but unfortunately for the vast numbers of 
people who must live in the very large urban-centered housing 
authorities of this country, conditions are terrible, and the Kennedy 
substitute in my opinion will do nothing, if anything at all, to 
rectify that problem.
  Mr. Chairman, if we are able to defeat the Kennedy substitute and 
move then to final passage in the adoption of the proposal as put 
forward by the chairman of the subcommittee, amended by 27 amendments 
from the Democrat side, we will make a significant new approach to 
public housing in this country. We will say to individuals who do not 
choose to be there most of the time:
  ``We're going to help you, but we're going to help you for a while, 
and we're going to ask you in return for that help to improve your own 
circumstance in life, get out and try to find work in the community, 
volunteer as it may be, to learn job skills, people skills. You may 
even find a job that pays you money while you are out doing this 
volunteer work''; because taxpayers in this country are saying, ``We 
don't object to helping people who truly are in need. We will extend a 
hand to someone who is injured, who is unemployed, who has found 
difficult times with his wife and family, who wants to help themselves. 
But we are saying that public housing in this Nation should not become 
a retirement community for people who will not try for themselves or 
their own families.''
  This is a pivotal change. It is an important change. We cannot 
continue to pour billions of dollars into programs with 40 years of 
experience which have proven to fail and, more importantly, take more 
than decent living conditions away from people. They take their hope, 
their vision, their opportunity for a future because all they see is 
poverty. They do not see working dads or moms at home with kids or even 
businesses at their front door. They see drug dealers, broken-down 
apartment buildings and no hope, where the police are scared to come.
  This is a pivotal decision. It is critical to our Nation's future to 
give back to the working poor and the poor of this country the belief 
that if they try, we will help them, and that there is a price to pay 
if they do not make the effort for their own family. This is an 
integral part of our overall social services reform, where last year a 
majority of the Democrats in an almost unanimous Republican vote voted 
to impose work requirements of 20 hours a week for those who receive 
social services, soon to go to 80 hours a month, then to 100 hours a 
month and to increase thereafter.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not a new concept, it is not difficult, we know 
it works, and today we will make the change.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 second 
to respond.
  Mr. Chairman, first I just want to make certain that people 
understand that in this bill, in the Kennedy alternative, we have 
provisions that say if two individuals working in the same family, both 
of them earn minimum wage, they are eligible for public housing. Check 
the figures. They earn $25,000 a year, check the figures. In almost 
every major American city they, in fact, qualify for the public housing 
targeting amendments that we have today.
  My concern is not those individuals in terms of public housing. We 
ought to have home ownership programs. They can afford it. We ought to 
get them the homes they need.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. 
Kilpatrick].

                              {time}  1415

  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], our ranking member, for yielding to me as 
we continue our debate on H.R. 2.

[[Page H2638]]

  I rise in support of the Kennedy substitute. As was mentioned 
earlier, in 1937, then Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the President of this 
great country, signed into law the Public Housing Act. This bill, H.R. 
2 before us, will be a total repeal of that act.
  What is needed then and is needed today: housing for the least of 
these. The Kennedy substitute will allow more people to have homes, 
more children to live in homes. H.R. 2, in its original version, will 
increase the homeless population in America.
  There are 650 laws that are affected by this H.R. 2 implementation, 
if it passes on this floor today. Someone mentioned earlier two minimum 
wage jobs. Is that what we want in America, two minimum wage jobs for 
working families? One cannot live on minimum wage. What people want to 
do is work in good-paying jobs and to take care of their families.
  There are over 16 million people who qualify to live in public 
housing because they are in that poverty scene and want to get out. We 
have only 4 million public housing units. So let us not stand here and 
say how great it is to live in public housing. Most people, including 
all of us, want better housing than that.
  The Kennedy substitute addresses those concerns. It does allow for 
people who find themselves in poverty. Decent, adequate housing will 
not increase the homeless population and will allow people to look for 
work. We need to be talking about work in this legislature. How do you 
find good-paying jobs for people so that they can work and take care of 
their families? The Kennedy substitute best meets that.
  As was said earlier, this is not a panacea. There is still much work 
to be done in America, much work to be done in this Congress. Good-
paying jobs are what we need, and quality education so people can rise 
to the level to take care of themselves and live in fine housing. I 
urge my colleagues to support the Kennedy substitute.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Montana [Mr. Hill].
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Lazio] for yielding me this time.
  I rise to express my strong support for H.R. 2, and I think when we 
talk about the substitute we have to think about what is the problem 
that we are trying to address in this legislation. The first problem, 
the most apparent problem is that we have had 20 years of misguided 
policy that has focused on a principle of providing housing and housing 
alone for the poorest of the poor. The result of that has been 
destroyed neighborhoods. These are neighborhoods that often do not have 
stores, they often do not have banks, they generally do not have 
employers. These are neighborhoods without hope and these are 
neighborhoods without opportunity.
  H.R. 2 is about more than providing housing. It is about creating 
healthy neighborhoods. It is about creating healthy communities.
  The Kennedy substitute stops doing the worst, but the problem with it 
is that it is incomplete. It does not have a vision for the future. It 
does not create a mechanism, it does not allow for the flexibility for 
real change in those neighborhoods. It is like comparing a passive 
approach with the active approach that is engaged in H.R. 2.
  As I say, it is not that it is bad, it is just that it is incomplete 
because it does nothing to change this culture of dependency. The 
Kennedy substitute does nothing to ask residents to give something back 
to their community. It does nothing to create mixed income communities. 
It does nothing to create opportunity in those communities, as well. 
Simply speaking, the Kennedy substitute is short on vision, it is short 
on hope, and it is short on opportunity.
  We have a clear choice on this vote. If we vote down the Kennedy 
substitute and vote for H.R. 2, we are going to create more hope and 
opportunity in our neighborhoods. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 10 
seconds to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson], my good friend 
who did such a great job on this debate.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let me first congratulate the 
chairman of the subcommittee, [Mr. Lazio], who I genuinely believe has 
made sincere efforts to reform public housing in this country. I also 
want to congratulate our ranking member [Mr. Kennedy] for his sincere 
efforts to reform public housing in this Nation, as well.
  Mr. Chairman, our position, however, it occurs to me, is to determine 
who is sincerely right and who is sincerely wrong. How do we determine, 
Mr. Chairman, who is right and who is wrong? There is only one standard 
for which we should implore when we vote on H.R. 2, to determine who is 
right and who is wrong, and that is the ``do unto others as we would 
have them do unto us'' standard.
  Mr. Chairman, just no Member of Congress, all of us who receive 100 
percent of our paychecks from the public, is being asked to give 8 
hours of our time per month in exchange for the very real public 
benefit that we receive; just not one of us who receives a mortgage 
deduction or any Federal benefit, including mining rights, including 
farm subsidies or corporate welfare. We tried yesterday in committee to 
attach to the Import-Export Bank legislation an 8-hour mandatory 
community service, since it is corporate welfare for corporations doing 
risky business in other parts of our country. Just no one.
  We have tried to attach it to other forms of corporate welfare, and 
yet the majority consistently rejects adding 8 hours of community 
service in exchange for their Federal benefit to any particular piece 
of legislation that comes before this Congress. Defense appropriations, 
it will be coming up shortly, and at no point in time will we ever 
mandate of them voluntarism.
  Only in this bill for the first time, to the best of my knowledge, 
since 1865, only in this bill for the first time since 1865 do we treat 
a different set of Americans any different than we have ever treated 
another group of Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, vote for the Kennedy substitute and against this 
draconian bill.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley].
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I do have to take a moment to congratulate 
the chairman of the subcommittee, [Mr. Lazio] for a phenomenal job in 
trying to reform the public housing policies of this Nation.
  A lot of times we have votes on this floor that are partisan, but I 
can assure my colleagues on this bill, this is a bipartisan effort. Out 
of 37 amendments adopted at the committee's markup, 29 were from the 
minority. So clearly, we were willing to negotiate, debate, and prevent 
this bill from being simply labeled a partisan attack on others.
  Clearly, when we have been able to watch communities work on housing 
initiatives directed at improving people's lives, they have largely 
been successful. The Federal Government would rather trap people in 
housing that few Members in this Chamber would dare live in, or visit. 
The idea of the bill is to give incentives and opportunities. The 
Kennedy substitute encourages residents to contribute 8 hours a month. 
Yes, we require it. We do not think anything is wrong in requiring 
people to perform a community service when they have been given 
something.
  Now, I clearly, and Members of Congress, spend numerous hours in our 
communities helping the Red Cross, American Cancer Society, Habitat for 
Humanity, AIDS coalitions, and other groups. Many, many hours we donate 
and volunteer, even though we are paid by Federal taxpayers.
  Clearly in this bill we are trying to give people a part of the 
American dream, not trap them in rental housing where they cannot grow 
and develop strong family commitments and bonds. We see in this bill, 
while not a perfect bill, a chance to reinvigorate inner cities, to 
give people hope and opportunity, to give them something to strive for 
and, yes, ask them to participate in voluntarism.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for 
yielding who I have enjoyed participating with on this debate over the 
course of the last 3 weeks.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that there is a distinction 
that

[[Page H2639]]

should be drawn between our voluntarism because it is innovating from 
our own will or self-reliance, without coercion and threatening one's 
eviction, without compensation in exchange for what we are terming a 
volunteer effort. There is a distinction that should be drawn between 
mandatory voluntarism and one that is not mandatory.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the one thing I am 
thrilled about in the bill is that we create so many carve-outs that if 
someone is in a vocational or technical program, going to school, if 
they are caring for an aged parent, if you will, if they are sick 
themselves, there are so many carve-outs that only those that choose to 
stay home and do nothing are required then to commit 8 hours of 
service. That is the beauty of this bill, is that we are not telling 
people if they are physically incapable of working that they have to 
somehow go clean up streets or clean graffiti off walls.
  When I go home to my district and talk to my constituents, many of 
them earning meager wages, many of them who could qualify for public 
housing, when I ask them if it is something so onerous to ask them for 
give 8 hours of service for that housing, they say, ``Mark, that is 
simple. That is easy. You should do it.''
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my 
good friend, the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez].
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, the Republican majority claims that H.R. 
2 is reform. Tearing down an essential program is not reform. I wonder 
if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle understand the kind of 
human misery that their reform will cause.
  If they are serious about fixing public housing, they must do so 
without abandoning the very poor. Congress must ensure that these 
families still have a decent and affordable place to call home. The 
problem with the Republican majority is that when something goes wrong 
and does not work, they want to dismantle it. Well, the American public 
thinks that this institution does not work. Are we going to dismantle 
it, too?
  Through reasonable targeting requirements, the Democratic substitute 
continues assisting the most disadvantaged households, while increasing 
the availability of public housing to the working poor. H.R. 2 will 
simply deny millions of women and their children shelter.
  What is more ironic, the Republicans are fond of claiming that H.R. 2 
promotes self-sufficiency. Be honest. How can we expect a family to 
achieve stability if parents are forced to work without pay? The 
Kennedy substitute replaces enforced labor with provisions that 
encourage work, giving families a true chance to achieve the American 
dream.
  Mr. Chairman, instead of addressing the real needs of real families, 
H.R. 2 offers despair and misery. I urge all of my colleagues to 
support the Kennedy substitute and guard our commitment to safe and 
affordable housing.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I would just note that we are in the process of trying to overhaul 
public housing for the first time, at least in any significant sense, 
in over 60 years; and if we prove in this House that we cannot correct 
this problem, if we establish that we will continue to look the other 
way when we see failure, then we certainly will present an opportunity 
for those people who believe that the Federal partnership in low- 
income housing is one that is futile to support.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard].
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Kennedy substitute and in strong opposition to H.R. 2.
  H.R. 2 is an unprecedented and indefensible retreat from the Federal 
Government's 60-year commitment to those in greatest need of housing 
assistance, our Nation's poor. Although proponents argue that the bill 
promotes local flexibility in the administration of public housing 
programs, that flexibility is achieved at too high a human cost.
  Experts agree that access to affordable housing is the No. 1 problem 
confronting needy families, yet H.R. 2 will allow housing authorities 
to replace poor families with those whose incomes are as high as 
$40,000 a year in some parts of the country.

                              {time}  1430

  This will remove a critical safety net for tens of thousands of poor 
families well into the next millennium as they seek to move from 
welfare to work. As a result, their only options are to resort to 
dilapidated, substandard housing, if they can find it, or to join the 
growing ranks of the homeless. This is a new American tragedy in the 
making.
  The Democratic substitute, however, reforms the public housing system 
without punishing those in greatest need of our help. It offers local 
flexibility without sacrificing accountability, and it provides 
sensible, workable reforms to public housing programs, and most 
importantly, it reinstates the Brooke amendment that ensures that poor 
families receive a fair share of housing assistance.
  On behalf of poor and working families throughout the Nation, I urge 
my colleagues to support the Kennedy substitute.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], originally from my State.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the claims being made on 
behalf of the majority's bill were valid, I would support it. If 
rhetoric could cure poverty after this debate, there would not be a 
poor person left anywhere in public housing. But this bill that the 
majority has brought forward has literally not one thing in it that 
helps anyone leave poverty, get a job, or improve herself.
  It does require you, if you live in public housing, to work 8 hours a 
month, and despite what was said earlier, inaccurately, even if you are 
the primary caregiver of someone unable to take care of himself or 
herself. Someone got carried away and thought the amendment of the 
gentleman from Illinois had been adopted, but it was not.
  So what we say is that if you are a poor person living in public 
housing and you are even the caregiver to someone, you still have to do 
the 8 hours a month, even if the housing authority believes that given 
the conditions in which you live, it really would not be terribly 
useful.
  It says you have to sign a contract promising that some day you will 
be a richer person. It does not provide you with a single tool to do 
that. The major way this bill improves public housing is by reducing 
the number of very poor people in it. I grant that point.
  If our unit of worth is an entity known as the public housing 
authority and if we are measuring not the good we have done for 
humanity, not the extent to which we have alleviated social problems, 
not the extent to which we have dealt with our fellow citizens who are 
deeply embedded in poverty, but if the measure is what does the housing 
authority look like and what is the average in that housing authority, 
then you have made it better. But you have made it better at the cost 
of excluding the poorest people, some of them, from this effort.
  If we wanted to really go after the problems in public housing, we 
would begin by solving the number one problem: inadequate resources. 
For decades we have caused a problem by trying to take care of the poor 
too cheaply. We do not alleviate that from the standpoint of humane 
goals by simply reducing the number of poor people we are trying to 
help.
  My friend, the gentleman from Delaware, said, well, let us look at 
the welfare bill. We made predictions about the welfare bill that were 
not coming true. Has he been in some other country for the past month? 
My recollection is that the first part of the welfare bill that is 
taking effect, that dealing with legal immigrants, part of the welfare 
bill that I proudly voted against, is causing such havoc and such pain 
that the bipartisan leadership agreement substantially repeals that 
part of the welfare bill.
  How can anyone talk about the great success of the welfare bill and 
ignore the fact, remember, the AFDC part, that is a 5-year time limit. 
That has not gone into effect yet. But the legal

[[Page H2640]]

immigrant parts have been widely considered to be such a disaster that 
billions of dollars of the bipartisan agreement are going to alleviate 
that mistake. This is a similar mistake: Resolve the problem by simply 
legislating the people out of existence, as far as we are concerned. 
That is not worthy of this House.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], the chairman of the 
subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I had not intended to speak on this particular bill until I saw my 
friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, putting forth some 
information with regard to the welfare reform bill.
  I might tell the gentleman that the welfare reform bill has probably 
been the most single successful piece of legislation that has passed 
this Congress in decades. Thousands of people, hundreds of thousands of 
people, are leaving the welfare rolls. Unfortunately, so many of our 
liberal legislators could not really see that these people had a self-
worth, and really all they needed was a little bit of a shove and 
incentive to go out and do the right thing, and to find a job. We have 
found that nowhere in our history have we seen the rolls fall as they 
have, no matter what the prosperity, as they have over the last year 
and a half. It is absolutely phenomenal.
  He says the limitation has not gone into effect. People know that the 
limitation is in effect in many of the States who are far ahead of the 
curve. His own State of Massachusetts, as well as Wisconsin and 
Michigan and Indiana, Delaware, these States have been very progressive 
in welfare reform, and their rolls, the people on welfare, have dropped 
considerably.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to have faith in the poor of this country. 
Just because somebody is poor does not mean that that person is not out 
there looking for a job. The question is, is welfare reform working. Of 
course it is working. I do not see how anybody can stand in this 
Chamber and say it is not working, because it is.
  I would say to my friend, have more faith in the poor of this 
country. Just because someone is poor does not mean that they do not 
care about their family, they do not care about their future, and there 
are so many people out there that are finding that there is a real 
future out there. They can share in the American dream.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to 
point out that the gentleman has just eloquently refuted something I 
never said. I was talking in fact explicitly not about AFDC recipients, 
because I do not believe that a bill that passed less than a year ago 
and has not gone into effect yet is the major factor affecting them.
  I was talking, as the gentleman quite understandably ignored, about 
the parts of his bill that I believe victimize legal immigrants, and 
which contrary to his views, is being repudiated by the Republican 
leadership and the President. The gentleman totally misstated my 
remarks.
  Mr. SHAW. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the 
gentleman, the SSI rolls among noncitizens was escalating at roughly 10 
times the speed it was for citizens. I would also tell the gentleman 
that of money spent on the elderly, over 51 percent was being spent on 
noncitizens.
  I would also tell the gentleman that we have reached an accommodation 
on SSI, and it is my intention to put before my committee a grandfather 
provision which will be brought to the floor as part of the budget 
agreement, as the implementation of the budget agreement, that will 
grandfather in all of those that were here on August 22, 1996.
  So from that standpoint, we are solving the problem of both the 
escalating nature of SSI for noncitizens, which was totally out of 
control, and we are then showing compassion for the people that were 
here.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida 
finally addresses the point I was making, as opposed to a point I never 
made.
  What he is acknowledging, of course, is that this grandfathering, et 
cetera, that he is talking about, it is a substantial repeal of his 
bill. The bill he is so proud of did damage to the legal immigrants, 
and the budget agreement, and he is talking about it, is undoing some 
of what he did to the legal immigrants in the welfare bill.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Kelly], a member of the 
committee.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Kennedy 
substitute for H.R. 2, the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act. 
With H.R. 2 we are stepping away from old thinking. We are ending the 
administration's passive approach to problems, and we are going to give 
communities the power to build strong neighborhoods. It is with this 
active approach that we can nurture our communities.
  The Kennedy substitute does nothing to change the culture of 
dependency of many who live in public housing, nothing. We can no 
longer throw large chunks of money at bloated, poorly functioning 
administrations that produce results that are mediocre, at best. These 
funds that come down from these administrations have so many strings 
attached that there is no flexibility to address the different problems 
that public housing authorities face across the country.
  I understand in one of my sick public housing authorities we had a 
cow butchered in a bathtub. We have to end this kind of public housing 
administration. One-size-fits-all has to end. We have to allow for a 
new synergy to be created. That is what H.R. 2 does. That is what the 
Kennedy substitute seeks to stop.
  I would like to emphasize the goals we are moving forward with in 
H.R. 2. They are simple: Personal responsibility that ends with a 
mutual obligation between the provider and the recipient, removal of 
disincentives to work and retention of protections for the residents, 
and empowerment of the individual and family through the choices that I 
believe will lead them to economic independence and the pursuit of 
their own American dream.
  I would like to emphasize that everyone has the same shared 
objective: Clean, safe, affordable housing that empowers the have-nots 
in our society to become people who can realize their own American 
dream. That is what we are going to do here with H.R. 2. This is what 
we will be voting for when we vote against the Kennedy substitute.
  I therefore urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting against 
the Kennedy substitute, that will do nothing for America's communities.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my 
good friend, the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Democratic 
substitute to H.R. 2 offered by our colleague, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. I want Members to know I do not come to 
this as some partisan reflex. The last time around I voted for the same 
bill that was passed in the last Congress.
  I have been listening very carefully to this bill, hoping, hoping 
there was some compelling reason to vote for this bill. Unfortunately, 
there is not. This bill has good intentions, and many of the things 
that are there I support, but it goes too far. It goes too far in 
denying the poorest of the poor the opportunity to have public housing. 
It certainly goes too far in having what we call the fungible funding.
  I think the Kennedy substitute is not status quo. It recognizes the 
problem but it commits itself to the poorest of the poor.
  Further, I want to commend and support the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Lazio] in his effort for this, and just would make a comment that 
neither his bill nor the Democratic substitute has anything in it about 
rural housing. I would be remiss not to tell the Members, as I stand 
talking about public housing, and to have this body of Congress ignore 
the vast need of rural housing.

[[Page H2641]]

   Mr. Chairman, I rise today, in support of the Democratic substitute 
to H.R. 2, offered by our colleague Mr. Kennedy.
   Mr. Chairman, I did not come to this decision through impulse, nor 
did I come to this decision simply by partisan reflex. On the contrary, 
Mr. Chairman, over the course of the last several days, I have listened 
closely and intently as this body has vigorously debated the various 
provisions of H.R. 2--hoping Mr. Chairman--hoping to hear some 
compelling reasons to vote in favor of the bill.
  I believe as do many if not most of my colleagues, that the current 
state of our Nation's public housing system has fallen into disrepair 
and neglect. Federal housing policies which have been promulgated over 
the last decades, have, despite their good intentions, in many 
instances worked to trap the poorest among us in isolated pockets of 
poverty, and in some cases contributed to the disintegration of the 
family structure, which has in turn led to a drastic increase in the 
crime rate in many of our Nation's highest density public housing 
projects.
  Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I voted in favor of H.R. 2406, the Public 
Housing Reform bill that passed the House last Congress, only to fall 
prey to bickering between House and Senate Republicans in the 
conference committee, because I felt then and continue to feel that 
this body must act to stop the catastrophic deterioration in our 
Nation's public housing system.
  H.R. 2, as advertised by its proponents, portends to address many of 
the most outrageous and egregious concerns with the public housing 
system that we all share. And, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, to a 
certain extent the bill does just this. It radically reshapes public 
housing system. H.R. 2 gives greater flexibility to local housing 
authorities in setting rents in order to encourage a mix of more 
working families among public housing tenants. In addition, the bill 
grants local authorities and owners of federally-assisted housing 
unprecedented powers to evict drug dealers and criminals, while also 
empowering them with greater screening powers to prevent dangerous 
individuals with criminal pasts from becoming residents.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, while H.R. 2 does achieve some laudable 
objectives--in many aspects, H.R. 2 goes too far in reshaping the 
Nation's public housing system and gives too much autonomy and 
authority to local housing authorities.
  In particular, I believe that the income targeting provisions of H.R. 
2 are so broad as to constitute a complete and total shift away from 
the fundamental mission of public housing--namely to provide safe, 
decent, and affordable housing to the poorest among us.
  The targeting provisions in H.R. 2, as I understand them, only 
require public housing authorities to expend 35 percent of Federal 
housing assistance toward those families earning below 30 percent of 
the area median income. While this figure is no different than that 
which was included in the housing bill that passed the House last 
Congress, and is only 5 percent less than the 40 percent required under 
the Kennedy substitute, H.R. 2 also carried with it a more deceptive 
provision that would for all intents and purposes, remove the Federal 
Government's commitment to providing housing for the very poor.
  This is the so called fungible income targeting requirement. Under 
this provision, local public housing authorities can meet their 35 
percent targeting requirement simply by admitting very low-income 
families to the choice based housing program, rather than admitting 
them into housing units.
  It is conceivable therefore, that under this provision, the Nation's 
permanent housing stock would be closed to some of the poorest families 
in the country--many of them elderly and disabled. Instead of being 
placed in a housing unit, many of these families would be forced to 
search the section 8 housing market in areas which may be unfamiliar to 
them, or in locations where mass transit resources and job 
opportunities are sparse. Or even worse, Mr. Chairman, the fungible 
income targeting requirements in the bill, may force some families into 
the streets.

  While I agree with the goal of attracting more of the working poor 
into the public housing system, I believe that the targeting provisions 
included in H.R. 2 are unnecessarily drastic and requires too little of 
local public housing authorities in regards to assisting low-income 
families.
  The Democratic substitute which we are debating, achieves the same 
objectives of creating a better income mix in public housing--which 
creates more stable and safe communities--without completely disavowing 
our Nation's commitment to the very poor. The income targeting 
provisions in the Democratic substitute are 5 percent deeper than that 
in H.R. 2, requiring local public housing authorities to dedicate 40 
percent of their permanent public housing stock to those individuals 
and families that earn below 30 percent of the area median income. In 
addition, 90 percent of available housing units would be reserved for 
families below 60 percent of area median income.
  Most importantly, however, the substitute, would protect very low-
income families by removing the fungible income targeting requirements 
in H.R. 2. Under the substitute, local housing authorities, could not 
meet their income targets for low-income families simply by admitting 
these families to the choice-based housing program.
  Mr. Chairman, the Democratic substitute, represents real reform to 
our Nation's public housing system. It addresses many of the most 
egregious and outrageous abuses that are allowed to occur under our 
present housing laws.
  Like, H.R. 2, Mr. Chairman, the Democratic substitute, eliminates 
obsolete and burdensome Federal regulations such as the ``take-one-
take-all'' requirements on landlords and the ``endless lease'' 
provisions in current law--giving greater flexibility and automony to 
the local housing authorities. Moreover, the substitute would help to 
create more stable public housing communities by allowing housing 
authorities to deny housing assistance to drug and alcohol abusers, 
while at the same moderately changing the income targeting provisions 
to allow for a greater number of working poor to have access to public 
housing resources.
  Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, the Democratic substitute represents a 
clear departure from the current law guiding our public housing system. 
However, in recognizing the need for local public housing authorities 
to exercise greater flexibility and autonomy in addressing the 
particular needs of the communities for which they serve, the 
substitute maintains the fundamental mission of public housing--namely 
to assist the very poorest families among us.
  Last Congress, Mr. Chairman, I voted in favor of H.R. 2406--the 
precursor to H.R. 2--because it was the only viable piece of 
legislation which corrected some of the most egregious shortcomings of 
the public housing system.
  While I commend Mr. Lazio for his genuine efforts to address many of 
the concerns that we all share, today I stand in support of the 
Democratic substitute to H.R. 2 because it too represents real reform 
and it too changes the culture and focus of our public housing system. 
However, it does this while protecting the most vulnerable families 
among us.
  Accordingly, I urge all of my colleagues to support the Democratic 
substitute to H.R. 2.
  Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, although I understand the subcommittee 
chairman's decision to focus on public housing as a whole, I would be 
remiss if I did not state my disappointment that neither the substitute 
nor H.R. 2 includes provisions addressing the housing needs and 
concerns of rural America.
  As I am certain that the chairman is aware, rural areas have some of 
the highest rates of poverty and more dire housing needs than many 
other more urbanized areas in the country. According to the 1990 
census, there were more than 7.6 million people with incomes below the 
poverty level in rural America. Moreover, census data also indicate 
that about 2.8 million rural Americans live in substandard housing.
  In county after county of my district of North Carolina, Mr. 
Chairman, affordable housing is sparse and the dream of owning a home 
is often times unattainable.
  I hope, Mr. Chairman, that as we conclude the debate on H.R. 2, this 
body will begin to look more seriously at the housing needs and 
concerns of rural America.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I first of all want to compliment my good friend, the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Lazio], for the excellent work he and his staff, as well 
as the staff on this side of the committee, has done on this bill. I 
sometimes felt like I should be calling my cousin-in-law, Arnold 
Schwartzeneggar, and telling him to watch Terminator III on the House 
floor, because that is what it has felt like from time to time on this 
bill.
  I do want to just say to everyone listening that I know we have, I 
think on both sides of the aisle, tried to make certain we have an open 
and honest debate on this issue. There are serious differences. I do 
not believe that we ought to be abandoning the very poor in pursuit of 
solving our housing problems in this country.
  We do have housing problems. We can continue to protect the poor. We 
can do it within the context of making the changes in public housing 
policy which will avoid the mistakes of the past, the huge 
monstrosities where we warehouse the poor, and allow us to have an 
enlightened view of how we house our vulnerable people into the future 
of this country.

[[Page H2642]]

                              {time}  1445

  I look forward to working with the chairman as we get to a 
conference.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I want to return the compliment to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
and thank him certainly for the working relationship that we have had 
through the committee process and through markup and finally on the 
floor of this House.
  In the 3 long weeks we have been debating this bill and almost 60 
amendments that have been heard, we have been able to dispose of those 
amendments, not all, I am sure, to the satisfaction of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, but at any rate in a way that I think preserves the 
dignity of this body and this House.
  We do have differences. We have differences in perspective. We have 
differences as to how much we trust local authorities, how much 
flexibility we ought to give them, how we ought to treat low income 
people.
  My friend from Massachusetts has offered an amendment that I believe 
would shut out working-class families, would shut out a husband and 
wife who happen to have low, minimum wage jobs from the possibility of 
receiving a rental voucher.
  We believe in local flexibility. We believe in empowerment. We sweep 
away the work disincentives that are in current law. I believe under 
the gentleman's proposition, those work disincentives continue to exist 
as long as we tie rent to income and do not permit, which we do under 
H.R. 2, we permit tenants to make that choice, to go to a flat rent so 
that they work longer, work harder, get a better job. They can keep the 
fruits of that labor.
  We want to empower people to do that. We want to reward work. We want 
to transform communities. And we know in the end that we cannot 
legislate an end to poverty. That will only happen if we create the 
right set of incentives, the right rules so that local individuals and 
local communities, once empowered, can begin to transform themselves.
  That is where the change will take place, because make no mistake 
about it, H.R. 2 is not just about shelter. It is about creating 
environments where poverty can be successfully addressed, and it will 
be only successfully addressed by the people of those same communities.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Democratic 
substitute offered by my friend, Joe Kennedy from Massachusetts.
  He's been a tenacious advocate for real housing reform, so tenacious 
that he's beginning to set a record for the number of times a bill has 
been on and off the floor.
  Actually, this is a good debate for us to have.
  It's a debate about setting priorities, about adopting reform while 
protecting people, and about giving hard-pressed working families a 
break.
  The Kennedy substitute is a reasonable, balanced approach to housing 
reform that protects the vulnerable, while giving local housing 
authorities the flexibility they need to do their jobs.
  By contrast, the Republican bill eliminates most Federal regulations 
affecting low-income housing assistance--including provisions that 
ensure Federal housing is targeted to those most in need.
  H.R. 2 repeals the Housing Act of 1937, and it will push the poorest 
tenants into homelessness.
  The Democratic substitute streamlines our Nation's housing laws, but 
does not repeal them.
  It protects seniors and the vulnerable by retaining current law, 
limiting rent to 30 percent of your income.
  And it encourages local housing authorities to provide mixed income 
housing, while preserving assistance to those most in need.
  The substitute provides the reforms and flexibility that local 
housing authorities need, but it does not contain the unfunded mandates 
that are included in the Republican bill.
  That's why local housing authorities support the substitute, why the 
administration supports it, and why I support it.
  I urge my colleagues: Oppose H.R. 2; support the Democratic 
substitute.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, we, the Congress, are once again asked to 
reenact Federal housing legislation that is unconstitutionally, 
philosophically, economically, and practically unsound.
  Prior to the Constitution-circumventing New Deal policies of the Fed-
induced Depression era, such redistributionist policies whereby 
Government takes money from one citizen to pay the housing costs--or 
some other cost--of another was forbidden. Supreme Court Justice Samuel 
Chase, in Calder versus Bull, opined that ``a law that takes property 
from A and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a 
people to intrust a legislature with such powers.'' Yet, this 
redistributionary scheme, rather than the exception, has become the 
rule as well as the rule of law in this 20th century, special interest 
state.
  But even setting aside the unconstitutionality of Government's 20th 
century housing policy for the moment, such redistributionary schemes 
are philosophically bankrupt as well. A right to housing, as espoused 
by proponents of this legislation, or a right to more than the fruits 
of one's own labor, by definition must deprive some other the right to 
keep the fruit of his or her own labor. Moreover, such a right cannot 
be a right as it is not enjoyable by all simultaneously. For if each is 
entitled by right to more than the fruit of one's own labor, one must 
then ask from where this additional production will come. It is this 
fallacy that prompted Frederic Bastiat, the brilliant 18th century 
political-economist to remark: ``The State is the great fictitious 
entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone 
else.'' Bastiat understood that Government was an agreement entered 
into for the purpose of protecting one's own property rather than the 
tool by which individuals could collectively band together to deprive 
others of theirs.
  The problems with Government housing extends even beyond these not-
so-insignificant barriers. The economic and practical aspects of such a 
policy warrant serious scrutiny as well. One must not forget that 
individuals respond to incentives and incremental measures moving this 
country further in the wrong policy direction must be actively opposed.
  There are those in this Congress who concede that there are serious 
problems with our Federal housing policy but argue that we must reform 
it to correct these problems. By incrementally moving in the right 
direction we can look out for those affected--not just the tenants but 
the others dependent upon the Government miscreant as well.
  This incrementalist approach has not worked in the past and will not 
work in the future. This bill will not move us incrementally in the 
right direction. The direction in which this legislation will lead us 
could be referred to as a continuation of mission creep. An idea for a 
small program or expenditure, no matter how deserving or well meaning, 
will only feed an ever-growing appetite for more Government money.
  This bill will demonstrate yet again the innate nature of a 
Government subsidy to grow exponentially. Despite the confident 
assurances of flatlining the HUD budget for a few years, Government 
subsidized housing will continue to grow. A GAO report points out that 
there are an additional $18 billion in FHA insured mortgages at risk. 
While not a part of H.R. 2 directly, the liabilities associated with 
the subsidized mortgages on the housing projects and other factors 
virtually assure it, even if it were not the nature of Government's 
quest to sate its ravenous consumption of our money.
  The social reformers of the New Deal era persuaded a pliant 
Government to address the issue of unemployment and the needs of the 
slum dwellers. Presumably, no one bothered to address the 
responsibility issue. John Weicher of the Hudson Institute explains 
well the logic that brought us the current situation.
  The social reformers of that era chose to ignore market forces, human 
nature, and the nature of Government. If Government spends enough of 
other people's money, Government can change lives. ``We know better for 
them than they do--and just how to do it,'' was the condescending 
implication.
  They claimed that poor tenement housing largely caused the social 
ills of the urban dwellers. These so-identified breeding grounds of 
crime, delinquency, disease, mental illness, and worse were regarded as 
the result of the poor living conditions, not the cause. If Government 
could give them decent housing, Government could eliminate these 
problems, they dreamed. That dream has become a nightmare for all too 
many people--both for the people trapped by the constraints of the 
public dole and those forced through taxation to pay for it.
  The erstwhile social reformers thought Government could eliminate the 
slums, create jobs in a depression and even encourage home ownership. 
Through Government, they could realize their dreams. They were wrong.
  The United States Housing Act of 1937 established public housing, our 
oldest subsidy program, in order to create affordable, Depression-era 
housing for those temporarily unemployed or underemployed, eliminate 
slums, and increase employment through make-work construction jobs. The 
Great Depression has long been over, but its misguided largesse and 
Constitution-circumventing redistribution schemes continue. Of course, 
we are still paying the deficit--with compound interest--for

[[Page H2643]]

those jobs despite having institutionalized slum life.
  The War on Poverty demonstrated the mission creep. In 1965 government 
created the Housing and Urban Development [HUD] Agency following the 
beginning in 1961 of federally subsidized construction of privately 
owned housing projects. Subsidized housing has now mutated into three 
forms: public housing, privately owned projects and, section 8 
certificates and vouchers for use in privately owned housing. Each of 
these three forms of Government-subsidized housing makes up roughly 
one-third of the subsidized housing stock.
  Of the public housing projects, over 850,000 of the 1.4 million units 
were built between 1950 and 1975. Only about 100,000 new units were 
added to the public housing stock in the last 10 years. These units are 
built entirely with public funds, and the Federal Government pays part 
of the cost of operation. Over time, the Federal Government has to pay 
to modernize these developments too.
  However, the local Public Housing Authorities [PHA's] run the 
projects with such ineptitude in so many cases they are literally run 
into the ground. Costs to operate the public housing projects are 
comparable to private housing, according to HUD numbers, only if one 
does not consider the cost of building the units in the first place--as 
if the cost of the mortgage on a private housing building should not be 
a factor in setting the rent.
  The Federal Government then picks up the tab for the so-called 
modernization, or rehabilitation, of the projects as they deteriorate. 
With this setup, there is no incentive for the local PHA officials to 
reinvest the rental income back into the units. As a consequence, the 
local PHA does not maintain them sufficiently, and the tenants suffer a 
life in substandard housing. Standards that are deemed unacceptable in 
private housing are somehow good enough in the Government's eyes for 
those on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder.
  The privately owned projects also bilk taxpayers on a grand scale, 
according to HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo. He lambastes the fact that the 
Government is overpaying rents compared to what his department 
considers Fair Market Rent. HUD is subsidizing rents of $849 a month in 
Chicago neighborhoods where the market rate is only $435 a month; 
paying $972 a month in Oakland, CA, against a market rate of $607 a 
month; and in Boston, Government is paying $1,023 a month vis-a-vis 
$667 monthly in the private market, he says.
  Mr. Cuomo attacks these abuses and decries the State of subsidized 
housing, but he does not recognize that these abuses are symptomatic of 
the system he is trying to preserve. ``For years we have been trying to 
grapple with this issue,'' he tells us and dangles promises of huge 
future savings if Government tinkers around the edges of an ill-
conceived system that tries to cheat the market, tries to circumvent 
human nature, and ignores the nature of Government subsidies.
  His current promises are as false as the promises of his 
predecessors. One of his successors will 1 day lament the horrible 
State of subsidized housing he inherited and will promise grandiose 
reforms that will save billions if Government only passes a future 
subsidized housing bill.
  One of the worst complications of this approach is the builtin 
disincentives to proper management. Under a convoluted setup, these 
privately owned projects rely on FHA insurance and a Federal subsidy 
paycheck to pay for it. Too often, these ill-managed projects 
deteriorate so quickly that the units are torn down before they pay for 
their own construction. Under Mr. Cuomo's directives, HUD will decide 
the market rate concerning its subsidies. The market distortions of the 
tax code and FHA insurance make the situation worse.
  Vouchers and certificates are the best of the inherently flawed 
approaches. About 80 percent of people with vouchers find suitable 
housing of their choice--very often at only 40-60 percent of the cost 
of less desirable public housing. After enacting certificates in 1974 
and vouchers in 1983, about 1.5 million households have been served by 
this approach--1.1 million through certificates and 400,000 through 
vouchers.
  The benefits of the tenant-based approach include the reliance of a 
quasi-free market competition with the attendant bonuses of lower 
costs, great efficiency, rewards for personal initiative, and 
individual choice. Under tenant-based rental assistance, recipients are 
less likely to live in concentrated poor urban communities that often 
lack basic necessities: safety, good schools, employment opportunities, 
access to financial services, and so forth. They have a way out of the 
trap of project-based public housing units that have become a way of 
life.
  Market incentives through tenant choice put the renters in charge of 
their housing decisions. They may find the housing of their choice and 
even keep the difference between the rent and the voucher if they find 
housing for less than their voucher enabled them. This is not the case 
with the certificates. Unfortunately, the household remains tied to the 
State with the contingent constraints and perverse incentives that this 
arrangement implies.

  Unfortunately, H.R. 2 does not address these concerns. It leaves 
uncertain the ``proper'' approach to subsidizing housing despite the 
fanfare of a ``new'' approach. While formally repealing the 1937 
housing act, the mentality remains along with the compendium of 
problems inherently associated with it.
  The bill leaves uncertain whether a ``tenant-based approach'' or a 
``project-based approach'' will be instituted. In the Washington 
tradition, a compromise is offered. Again, in the Washington tradition, 
this bill embraces the worst aspects of both approaches and fuses them 
together.
  This bill tries to ``target'' their social reforms now. By this 
Government's attempts to force social reforms through osmosis by luring 
better role models into the modern slums. Perhaps the Ellen Wilson 
housing project in Washington, DC, just blocks away from the Capitol, 
would reassure us as to the benefits of incrementalism. In a city with 
a waiting list of 16,000 people, Government is spending about $186,000 
per unit to build subsidized housing instead of spending less per unit 
and housing more people.
  One would hope that at least such incredible sums are going to the 
most needy of the 16,000 people waiting for subsidized housing. Yet 
even those earning up to $78,000 a year could qualify. Incremental 
social reform is not cost efficient.
  The Washington Post wrote on April 24, 1997, that Valley Green, a 
Washington, DC, housing project built in early 1960's, was launched 
``to house people displaced by `slum clearance,' [and] soon became a 
slum itself, poisoned over the decades by a toxic brew of poverty, 
rampant vandalism, violent drug dealing, and government neglect * * *. 
The resulting wasteland, which stretches across 20 acres of silent 
concrete courtyards and rutted city streets, has come to serve in 
recent years as a convenient backdrop of politicians looking to cast 
blame for decades of despair.''
  This story is very indicative. It is one that has been retold far too 
many times in too many places. This expenditure has not even provided 
decent housing to those Government was trying to help. According to HUD 
inspection general reports, up to 80 percent of the units fail 
inspections.
  It is a story that will be retold again and again if this bill 
passes. It is a testimony of the effects of Government-engineered 
social reform of housing. One must not forget the lofty goal of slum 
elimination of the 1930's that spawned this misadventure. That lofty 
goal of the 1960's spawned the dreamily named Valley Green. One can 
only wonder what name Government shall bestow upon the next housing 
project born under H.R. 2's new legislative regime.
  Aside from the simple accounting costs associated with Government 
subsidized housing, there are other real costs. Unfortunately even this 
simplicity eludes HUD which routinely demonstrates that it is incapable 
of understanding basic accounting and accountability. Just this month, 
a congressionally instigated investigation of section 8 contract 
reserve accounts discovered $5 billion in addition to the $1.6 billion 
in excess reserve funds recaptured late last year. I sincerely doubt 
that the residents of Valley Green, other housing projects and 
taxpayers think this is a well-run program.
  Just since HUD was created, Government has appropriated over $572 
billion to the agency. Of course, this figure does not include rents 
and fees collected by the agency, so that it could be argued that total 
funding for public housing has been much higher. HUD is budgeted 
annually around $21.7 billion for each of the next 5 years, but the 
figure for last year was only $19.4 billion. More money will be wasted.
  For fiscal years, 1965-75, the agency's budget authority totaled less 
than $40 billion. In other words, Government has spent over half a 
trillion dollars of taxpayers' hard-earned money on subsidized housing 
in the last 20 years.
  Nor has this half a trillion dollars increased the home ownership 
rates of Americans. The fourth quarter averages of home ownership 
between 1965-74 averaged 64 percent. Despite such Governmental 
largesse, fourth quarter rates of home ownership averaged 64 percent 
between 1965-96. Certainly HUD has not made a significantly positive 
contribution to the goal of home ownership. They will be able to point 
to the easily identified few who have been helped at the expense of the 
less easily identified many who were negatively affected.
  One must not forget that the increased Government expenditures 
derived through taxation have stifled the ability of many would-be 
homeowners to save for the down payment and purchase the home of their 
dreams. Instead, they pay the taxes to bankroll the dreams of the 
social reformers, past and present.

[[Page H2644]]

  They are paying not only the bills of today but the taxes necessary 
to pay for the deficit spending dreamed up by previous social reforms. 
There is a real economic cost to these deficits. The distortions to the 
free market whereby the most efficient allocations of resources are 
made. HUD shows us the alternative--and considered enlightened--path to 
allocating resources better. The HUD bureaucracy consumes valuable 
resources that are best spent elsewhere. Even the new HUD Secretary 
concedes very readily that HUD is inefficient and wasteful. Government 
just needs to give it more time and more money, the Secretary pleads. 
Of course more time and more money have already cost us too much.

  This irresponsible pipe dreaming has contributed to unsound fiscal 
and monetary policies and introduced new iterations in the business 
cycle. As the market tries to factor in these Government-spending-
induced booms and busts, security against its ravages of higher 
unemployment and higher interest rates takes their toll. This added 
cost fuels the cycle which exacerbates the problem.
  Not only the taxpayers suffer under this approach. The civil rights 
of the tenants of subsidized housing are discarded as housing sweeps 
violative of the fourth amendment are conducted in the name of a 
misdirected war on poverty and lack of affordable housing.
  Of course, it is the middle class and working poor who pay the cost 
most directly. The rich shelter their money from many income taxes and 
have their FICA taxes for Social Security capped. This regressive 
Social Security tax takes an unfair toll on the working poor and middle 
class. Many more people could afford better housing absent paying for 
the inefficiencies of the Government's approach to housing.
  H.R. 2 is not the solution to our problems. Rather, it is an 
illustration of the creeping mission of more Government for a longer 
period of time not fulfilling the dreams of its engineers. This bill is 
more of the same incremantalism that began in the 1930's. Despite proof 
that it was not working, we are asked to vote again to throw more money 
at the problem, give government more control of our lives and reap the 
rewards.
  In the 1960's, Government acknowledged again the failure of the 
mission and expanded the reach of Government exponentially. With those 
promises demonstrably unfulfilled, Government find itself again at a 
crossroads. Continue creeping incrementally towards more Government 
spending and a loss of civil and economic liberties or the path of 
freedom. I urge Government to offer liberty.
  I do not doubt the compassion and intentions of many of the social 
reformers, then or now. They are, indeed, well-meaning folks. The 
problem is that the effects of their good intentions run counter to the 
aims of their endeavors.
  Instead of a safety net that merely prevents a newly unemployed 
single mother from falling, the public housing project traps her and 
her family in its net and holds them hostage to the whims of the local 
Public Housing Authorities. These PHA's are not accountable to her. She 
has sacrificed her liberty to PHA's that are too often sinecures 
provided by political cronyism. Tales of their abuse are legendary.
  This corrupt scenario produces crime statistics proportionately twice 
as high in and around subsidized housing projects as in the communities 
as wholes, according to HUD's Office of Public and Indian Housing. 
Without the accountability inherent in a market situation, abuses are 
almost predictable. The public housing projects are but one of the 
worst examples of flouting the free market and the loss of 
accountability.
  H.R. 2 attempts to improve the lot of those benefiting from 
subsidized housing and make the bureaucracy less burdensome. 
Unfortunately, by the time this proposal goes to the floor, so many 
changes will have been made, compromises accepted and political deals 
consummated that we end up with a bill in some ways worse than the 
status quo, as bad as that is.
  The end result of this well-meaning attempt to care for those less 
fortunate is higher taxes, especially on the working poor, slower 
economic growth, fewer job offers and a reaffirmation of Government's 
determination to keep tenants trapped in substandard housing whose 
managers are not accountable to them.
  At the same time, those politically astute suppliers of Government 
housing encourage the continuation of such programs at the expense of 
the more productive suppliers whose political polish does not place 
them in he ambit of those doling out the grants.
  We should end this misguided approach to such legislation. It 
punishes all taxpayers with the future additional expense of increased 
eligibility requirements while limiting further the availability of 
subsidized housing for those who currently qualify. It rewards special 
interest favors for the politically connected--both unaccountable 
subsidized housing managers, department bureaucrats, politically 
contributing public construction businesses and the landlords cashing 
above market Government rent checks for substandard housing.
  The opportunity that H.R. 2 provides is squandered in an extension of 
more of the same. While consolidating programs could make oversight 
easier and bureaucrats and local PHA's more accountable, it is unlikely 
that this bill will go far enough to address the problems with our 
subsidized housing programs. New problems resulting from targeting are 
almost certain. Many of the critics of the left are correct to point 
out this mean misallocation of funds from the working poor and middle 
class to tenants with higher incomes than current tenants despite the 
waiting list.
  Only by rewarding individual initiative, choice, responsibility and 
the resultant accountability can Government reforms better serve the 
recipients. Of course, only less Government and lower taxes will truly 
meet those aims.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 163, 
noes 261, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 126]

                               AYES--163

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     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
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--261

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Dooley
     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
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     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

[[Page H2645]]


     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     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
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Andrews
     Crapo
     Fattah
     Flake
     Hefner
     Schiff
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Watkins

                              {time}  1508

  Mrs. MORELLA and Messrs. HASTERT, McDADE, BASS, and LUTHER changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. WISE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 126, I had a 
malfunction of my pager. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHOOD). If there are no further 
amendments to the bill, the question is on the committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Combest) 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, pursuant to House Resolution 133, he reported the 
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of 
the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


       Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the 
bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts moves to recommit the bill 
     H.R. 2 to the Committee on Banking and Financial Services 
     with instructions to reconsider the bill for the purposes 
     of--
       (1) improving the income targeting provisions of the bill 
     by reserving more housing assistance for very low-income 
     families of various incomes; and
       (2) eliminating provisions in the bill creating unnecessary 
     bureaucracies.

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in 
the RECORD.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. First, Mr. Speaker, I want to reach out 
to my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] for the 
efforts he and his staff, and the efforts of the Committee on Banking 
and Financial Services staff have made, and all the members of the 
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity have made on this 
bill over the course of the last 3 weeks. This was, I thought, instead 
of being a housing bill, it turned into a California desert bill.
  I think that the bill before us creates the kind of dilemma that some 
of us will relish and some of us will recognize its time for a decision 
about what motivates us to run for the Congress of the United States. 
One choice before us, the choice to include it in H.R. 2, will in fact 
in some ways fix public housing. It will fix public housing, all right. 
It will fix the affordable housing programs in America. It fixes them 
by one easy sign of a pen. That one easy signing of the pen fixes this 
problem by simply eliminating the poor from eligibility for these 
programs.
  So if we want to look good before the American people and say, 
listen, we have eliminated all those monstrosities, all those terrible 
icons that represent Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose very act H.R. 2 
will eliminate, H.R. 2 eliminates the 1937 Federal Housing Act, the 
basic fundamental protections for the poorest people in this country.
  The question before us is not whether or not we should be turning our 
back on the very poor, it is not to say that the largest single segment 
of our population, the largest growing segment of Americans, is the 
very, very poor people of this country. What this bill does is 
essentially say that we are going to jack up the income guidelines on 
the housing programs of America, where currently 75 percent of all the 
units that go out in public or assisted housing go to people with 30 
percent of median income or less. What we are going to do is 
essentially say that not a single unit of public housing will 
necessarily go to the very poor.

                              {time}  1515

  In terms of the voucher program, 80 percent of those units can now go 
to people with moderate incomes, people earning 35 or $40,000 a year. I 
say people earning 25, 35 or $40,000 a year ought to have housing 
programs. They ought to have homeownership programs. In every city 
across America, banks and insurance companies are looking around for 
good loans that they can provide meaningful homeownership to those 
individuals. We ought not to be using the precious resources that are 
contained in public housing to go to those needs. We ought to be using 
the precious resources of public housing and the precious resources in 
the voucher program to go to the needs of the very, very poor.
  People will say that we need to reform how we build public housing 
and how the people are obtained that live in public housing and how 
many of them go to the very poor. We are going to hear a lot of 
rhetoric in the next few minutes saying that the Democrats are simply 
offering a new way of going back to the old way. They are going to 
suggest that we have not thought about the reforms that are necessary 
to get public housing out of the terrible condition it is in. It is in 
terrible condition in some of the cities of this country.
  But let us not forget that there are 3,400 public housing authorities 
in this country. There are 100 badly run housing authorities. There are 
badly run

[[Page H2646]]

housing projects. We ought to give the Secretary the capability of 
going after those badly run housing projects and taking them back. We 
ought to take control of the badly run housing authorities.
  This bill, in the Democratic substitute, eliminated the work 
disincentives. The Democratic substitute increases the working poor in 
public housing substantially over a period of 10 years. We will have 50 
percent of those units going to people with incomes above 50 percent of 
median income. But it is the terrible conditions that are going to be 
in place for the very, very poor.
  This country has done something unconscionable. We have said that 
what we are going to do in terms of balancing the budget is go about 
doing it by cutting the housing budget of America from $28 billion to 
$20 billion. We turned around and cut the homeless budget by 25 
percent. Then we turned to the public housing authorities and said, 
``We are going to save you. We are going to save you by allowing you to 
go out and take some more working families in. We are going to allow 
you to take up the incomes of the people that come in and charge them 
more rent.''
  That is what we have done, but we have not ever solved the problem. 
So we turn our back on the very poor, we turn our back on the homeless, 
and then we talk about the wonderful reforms that we are going to put 
into place.
  I say to my colleagues that we can get the reforms in place, we can 
allow public housing to go to more working families, but we do not have 
to do it by abandoning the poor, we do not have to do it by turning our 
back on the homeless. Let us not vote for an antihousing bill. Let us 
vote for a pro-Democratic housing bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Combest). Is the gentleman from New York 
opposed to the motion?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Leach], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services who has stood alongside me as we have 
debated this bill these last 3 weeks.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, in considering this motion to recommit I 
would hope Members on the other side would recognize that the party of 
liberalism that is doing well in the world is the party of Tony Blair, 
not parties of extremism that object to free market, to change of 
programs that fail, to restrained budgets.
  Before the House this afternoon is landmark legislation which 
attempts to balance the need for reform with the needs of the poor. 
While the authorization number is consistent with the administration's 
recommendation, some have implied the legislation is skinflinted. Our 
side would suggest it is an attempt to reform rather than eviscerate 
public housing; to change a partially failed system without walking 
away from the needy.
  Mr. Kennedy's approach would knock out of public housing programs 
most families of four with two parents holding minimum wage jobs. It 
would make it exceedingly difficult for two single parents in public 
housing with jobs to consider marriage because they would lose their 
housing benefits.
  In the last century two English political philosophers, Jeremy 
Bentham and James Mill--the son of John Stuart Mill--advanced a 
doctrine of utilitarianism--the guide of which was the precept, ``the 
greatest good of the greatest number.''
  Modern day liberals have abandoned 19th century progressive 
philosophy and replaced it with the notion of constituency politics, of 
targeting programs to groups without reference to their effect on 
society as a whole. The effect has been the development of a dependency 
cycle, which the new majority in Congress is attempting to break, and 
this bill is part of that effort.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, in these last few minutes of this 
debate after 3 weeks of having this bill on the floor with over 60 
amendments, this body is about to make a choice about the direction in 
which we are going to begin to address not just shelter but the core 
issue of poverty. Because the bill that we have before us today is not 
just about shelter. It is about trusting local communities. It is about 
ensuring that there is accountability. It is about getting value for 
our dollars. It is about transforming communities. It is about 
addressing some of the toughest issues that we have in America today.
  Yes, it is absolutely true that we will never be able to legislate an 
end to poverty from this House. There will be no bill that will be 
signed that will end poverty. The best that we can hope for is that we 
will begin to put in place a set of incentives for work, for family, 
for local control, for responsibility, and for accountability that will 
begin to mobilize the huge potential of human resources that we have in 
our own communities. There are those in this body on both sides of the 
aisle that believe we should tap into that huge human resource, that we 
should trust local control. In this bill we protect the poorest of the 
poor, but we also say that local housing authorities ought to have more 
choice so they can deal with their own problems.
  This is one of the public housing projects, not in some third world 
country but in America today. It is perversely called Desire in New 
Orleans. Last year when we were debating this bill, out of a score of 1 
to 100, HUD gave this public housing authority a score of 27. Can my 
colleagues imagine if one came back and talked to his family and said 
to his mom, dad, grandma, or grandpa, I got a score of 27 on my test, 
year after year after year. They would say, ``I think we ought to sit 
down and make some changes.''
  That is not the worst of it. The worst of it is in the year that has 
followed to this year, that score has not budged. That means that is 
another year in which young children are condemned to this situation of 
despair, this sense of no opportunity, of failure. Today we have 
something important to say with H.R. 2. We say this: We will end the 
disincentives to work, we will end the disincentives to families, we 
will provide flexibility, because we stand with families, we stand with 
working people, we stand with local control and we stand for ending 
poverty in all the communities throughout America. Vote for H.R. 2.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question was 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The motion to recommit was rejected.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 293, 
noes 132, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 127]

                               AYES--293

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     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
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler

[[Page H2647]]


     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     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, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--132

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Andrews
     Flake
     Hefner
     Kasich
     Kleczka
     Schiff
     Skelton
     Watkins

                              {time}  1543

  Mr. FORD changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________