[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 7 (Thursday, January 17, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H302-H329]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          HOPE VI IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 922 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3524.

                              {time}  1041


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3524) to reauthorize the HOPE VI program for revitalization of 
severely distressed public housing, and for other purposes, with Ms. 
Solis in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and the gentlewoman from 
West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in support of H.R. 3524, the HOPE VI Improvement and 
Reauthorization Act of 2007. As you know, I introduced H.R. 3524 on 
September 11 of 2007.
  I want to thank each of my colleagues both on the Committee on 
Financial Services and in the House who have joined with me to see that 
this important legislation passes the House. I want to especially thank 
Chairman Barney Frank, Melvin Watt, and Christopher Shays for their 
original coauthorship, cosponsorship, and support of H.R. 3524.
  In drafting this bill, we worked closely with the minority, resident 
organizations, housing advocacy groups, public housing agencies, 
housing developers, bankers, green building experts, and practitioners, 
and other Members with an interest in the HOPE VI program. The end 
result is a bill that I believe takes into account the needs of 
residents, the community, the investors and lenders, and our public 
housing managers. Most importantly, we have a bill that preserves and 
revitalizes our public housing stock.
  H.R. 3524 reauthorizes and improves the HOPE VI public housing 
revitalization program by requiring the one-for-one replacement of all 
demolished public housing units, providing residents with meaningful 
and substantive involvement in the planning and development of the HOPE 
VI plan, expanding community and supportive services from 15 percent of 
grants that amount to 25 percent of grant amount; prohibiting HOPE VI 
specific screening criteria so that public housing residents and HOPE 
VI aren't held to a higher standard than non-HOPE VI residents, 
requiring housing agencies to monitor and track the whereabouts of 
relocated families, and mandating that developments be built in 
accordance with green building standards.
  Public housing residents, including those not yet impacted by HOPE 
VI, and housing advocates have said that this bill has been a long time 
in coming, and I agree with them. I would like to note why the bill 
before us today is so important.
  First, it preserves public housing. The administration eliminated the 
one-for-one replacement requirement in 1996, effectively triggering a 
national sloughing off of our Nation's public housing inventory.
  Housing authorities have consistently built back fewer units than 
they have torn down and, as a result, over 30,000 units have been lost 
as a direct result of the HOPE VI program. Stopping this bleeding was 
paramount in the drafting of this legislation. One-for-one replacement 
is not only a part of the bill; it is the heart of this bill. Limiting 
one-for-one to only occupied units does a disservice to families on 
waiting lists and to families waiting to get on waiting lists. Public 
housing is a community resource, and units can be unoccupied because 
they are not fit for humans to live in. That does not mean that there 
is no need for them.
  Second, because of strict screening criteria, HOPE VI has become 
limited to the cream of the public housing crop. Some people think that 
the HOPE VI development represents a new and better community and 
should have new and better people. However, as a Congress, we must be 
clear that public housing is for the most in need, not just the easiest 
to serve.

                              {time}  1045

  HOPE VI projects have programs and services that can greatly benefit 
our neediest families.
  In addition, in the drive to separate the wheat from the chaff, 
public housing agencies have implemented screening criteria that are 
nothing short of draconian. These criteria include everything from 
credit checks, home visits, work requirements, and other criteria that 
many nonpublic housing residents would be unable to meet. We must 
reject any attempt to continue to punish public housing residents for 
being poor and must continue to provide them with the tools, through 
programs like HOPE VI, to assist them in improving their lives.
  Lastly, I would like to talk about why green building standards 
should be mandatory in HOPE VI developments. Our public housing was 
built poorly and inefficiently. Many of our developments are wasteful 
and hazardous to the health of the residents, and many investments we 
make in public housing developments, which will be around for the next 
40 years, should ensure that this housing is safe, sound, energy 
efficient and good for the environment. This is just good public 
policy. We owe it to our public housing residents and to the 
environment to make sure that we do not recreate the inefficient and 
harmful mistakes that went into building many of these developments in 
the first place.
  This bill has the support of over 145 resident organizations: the 
National Low-Income Housing Coalition, the National Alliance to End 
Homelessness, the National Housing Law Project, the Community Builders, 
Bank of America, the Housing Justice Network, the Corporation for 
Supportive Housing, and others. There are a lot of good things in this 
bill, and these groups recognize this.
  Specifically, regarding the green building provisions, although one 
group is not supportive, over 30 organizations, including the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors, the American Public Health Association, the 
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, the National Low-Income 
Housing Coalition, the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, and 
others, have voiced their overwhelming support for the green building 
requirements in the bill.
  We have crafted a bill that is good for residents, housing 
authorities, and communities. I urge you not to be blindsided by 
threats from third parties and to support our Nation's low-income 
families and to preserve our housing stock.
  Madam Chairman, I would like to say in closing that this should be a 
bill that receives support from both sides of the aisle. This is the 
kind of bill that we can truly come together around. Everyone 
recognizes that it is needed in all communities, rural and urban, 
suburban, all over the United States.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CAPITO. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Today's HOPE VI program is the direct result of the 1992 report 
submitted to Congress by the National Commission on Severely Distressed 
Public Housing that said approximately 6 percent of the 1.4 million 
existing public housing apartments were severely distressed and 
recommended that they be removed from the housing stock.
  Since Congress began appropriating funds for HOPE VI in 1992, the 
program has been revitalizing and replacing some of the most dangerous 
and dilapidated public housing units in the country with mixed-income 
communities. These grants play a vital role in a community's 
redevelopment and have changed the physical characteristics of public 
housing from high-rise tenements to attractive, marketable units that 
blend in with the surrounding neighborhood and help residents attain 
self-sufficiency.

[[Page H303]]

  While the goals of the program are to be commended, and HOPE VI 
projects remain popular with many Members of Congress, it is not 
without faults. The HOPE VI program has been criticized by the 
administration, which argues that grantees spend their money too 
slowly, and by tenant advocates, who claim the program displaces more 
families than it houses in new developments. Also, there are those who 
argue that HOPE VI is not an efficient method for meeting the current 
and future capital needs of public housing programs.
  The bill we are considering today, H.R. 3524, makes several 
significant changes to the underlying program. I want to commend 
Chairman Frank, Chairwoman Waters, and Congressman Shays for their 
bipartisan work on this bill. I know that Congressman Shays has worked 
hard to address some of the concerns raised by HUD and by those on this 
side of the aisle regarding the bill. Certainly, the manager's 
amendment moves in the right direction. However, there are still 
several areas of disagreement on this legislation, such as the 
elimination of demolition-only grants, implementing one-for-one 
replacement requirements, and mandating HOPE VI developers comply with 
the Green Communities Green Building Rating System.
  The HOPE VI program has been a program that has worked. Through 
public-private partnerships, we have changed the physical shape of 
public housing by establishing positive incentives for resident self-
sufficiency and comprehensive services that empower residents. We must 
take care not to make this program so prescriptive that developers and 
nonprofits find the program too difficult in which to participate.
  Several years ago, I spoke at the opening ceremonies at Orchard Manor 
in Charleston, West Virginia. Orchard Manor is now a beautiful complex 
of townhouses, duplexes and apartments that began its transformation 
from a rundown public housing project with the removal of 230 out of 
the existing 360 units under a HUD HOPE VI demolition-only grant. 
Following the initial demolition, additional units were constructed 
using replacement housing funds until the complex reached its present 
state. Orchard Manor is a shining example of the importance and 
significance of using demolition-only grants as part of HOPE VI. The 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) has an amendment that will 
reinstate HUD's ability to fund demolition-only grants, and I urge its 
adoption so future successful projects, such as Orchard Manor, can 
receive that funding.
  Finally, I plan to offer an amendment that I believe is a commonsense 
approach to green building requirements outlined in this legislation. I 
am concerned that Congress is attempting to mandate this program. 
Building green is a good thing. Mandating how to do it by a private 
building standard, I believe there are other ways to do it, which is 
essentially the heart of my amendment.
  Specifically, the green building requirements in the bill could lead 
to fewer affordable housing units being built. My amendment still 
requires minimum green building standards, but it directs the Secretary 
to select an appropriate green building rating system standard or code 
that addresses environmental soundness but leaves that flexibility for 
the Secretary to determine other criteria as appropriate.
  We are currently experiencing rapid development in our definition of 
what constitutes a legitimate ``green building standard'' through the 
competition of differing ideas. This competition is a healthy one, and 
we should not cut short through a hasty endorsement of one of the 
competing proprietary standards as our definition.
  In closing, the HOPE VI program is not a cure-all for the 
rehabilitation and capital improvement needs of public housing units. 
However, this House has the opportunity with this bill, through several 
amendments, to further develop a program that rehabilitates our public 
housing into affordable, mixed-income communities.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to Mr. Barney Frank of 
Massachusetts, the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentlewoman who chairs the 
Housing Subcommittee for the time and for her very creative and 
diligent work on this bill and others. And I also want to acknowledge 
our new ranking member of the Housing Subcommittee, the gentlewoman 
from West Virginia.
  Let me begin by noting that obviously in the parliamentary forum we 
focus on areas of difference. Members should note how small those are 
relatively in the context of this bill. This is a significant rewrite 
of the HOPE VI program in which there was not a lot of objection. In 
fact, I think every amendment but one that was offered was made in 
order. I disagree with several of the amendments, but I do want to 
stress the commonality of reform that is in here as we go forward.
  There are two basic areas of difference. Two amendments on the other 
side of the aisle from the two gentlemen from Texas would reduce the 
requirement that with Federal money we replace low-income units that we 
destroy. Yes, there are low-income units that should be eliminated as 
they now exist, but that does not mean that the total number of housing 
units available for lower-income people ought to be diminished as a 
conscious Federal policy. And the amendments of my two colleagues from 
Texas would do that.
  The Sessions amendment would allow the Federal Government to give 
people money simply to tear down all of the houses that poor people 
live in in a particular area on the grounds that those weren't very 
nice houses. No doubt in many cases they are not nice houses, but the 
poor people who live in those houses didn't decide voluntarily to live 
in bad housing as opposed to nice housing. They had nowhere else to go. 
And if you tear down where they now are and build zero in its place, 
you have exacerbated the housing crisis.
  Similarly, the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) 
would diminish our capacity. We say if you tear them down, you have to 
replace them. You don't replace them in the same place. You can do it 
in a much broader area with more flexibility. You have 4\1/2\ years to 
replace the ones you have torn down and may go to the Secretary of HUD 
and get a waiver, say there is a court order, there is this land 
shortage. Some of these were, in fact, so useless. There are a lot of 
reasons you can go to the Secretary of HUD. So we are not saying that 
the one-for-one has to be followed in every case. We do say that should 
be the standard.
  Here is the problem with the Neugebauer amendment. He says the 
housing authorities only have to replace units that they tear down that 
were occupied. Most people who run housing authorities are diligent, 
hardworking people in difficult circumstances, but there is 
incompetence in some housing authorities. People who have incompetently 
been unable to rent housing for one reason or another shouldn't be 
rewarded by then being allowed to tear that housing down.
  In other words, if housing authorities, who have the obligation to 
use the money available to house people, refuse to do that or are 
unable to do that, we should not reward them by saying then you don't 
have to build those. And there will be places where people don't like 
poor people living in their community, and the political leadership of 
that community could then order the housing authority to leave some of 
those units vacant, and then we will apply for a HOPE VI grant and we 
will be able to replace far fewer because we will be rewarded for 
leaving them vacant.
  The gentlewoman from West Virginia's amendment, and again there is 
some common agreement that we should go towards encouraging green 
building, but here is the difference. I know the homebuilders say this 
is bad for them, but understand, this is a Federal program with Federal 
money. We are not talking here about imposing on private-sector 
developers any requirement whatsoever to do energy efficiency. We are 
here as the landlord, not as the regulator.
  What we are saying is that we are the Federal Government and we will 
set an example. We will take the money that we, the Federal Government, 
makes available, and hold ourselves to a high energy efficiency 
standard. If people think that is inappropriate and it is too 
expensive, they don't have to apply to come here. That leaves everyone 
in the private sector free to do as they wish.

[[Page H304]]

  Beyond that, one of the strongest advocates of this has been my 
colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the chairman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee. He has to fund all of this, and he has to 
fund it going forward. We don't simply build the HOPE VI projects and 
walk away. We don't. The builders do. It is not their fault.
  If I am the contractor to build the buildings, my obligation is 
completed the day I have done the building and gotten the money for it. 
But we, the Federal Government, then have to fund it on an ongoing 
basis. What we are saying is, as the landlord, we want to build it in a 
way that makes it energy efficient going forward.
  We will take an up-front cost because, over time, over 20 and 30 and 
40 years, we will reduce our operating budget. So we are being told 
that as the landlord we can't make the decision about how efficiently 
to use funds and how to say we will reduce costs going forward. So I 
would hope that the gentlewoman's amendment is defeated. It would take 
it from a mandatory to one factor among many.
  We also have an argument about the standard. We do mention one 
standard. The homebuilders are wrong in their letter where they talk 
about the LEED standard. That is out of the bill in the manager's 
amendment.

                              {time}  1100

  On the green communities, we do mention the green community standard; 
but we explicitly give the Secretary of HUD the ability to propose 
another standard if it is equivalent in energy savings, and that's the 
key.
  So the amendment of the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) 
makes this one factor among many, not a required factor, and everything 
we do with our money to be energy efficient.
  And, secondly, she would allow a much weaker standard in many cases 
than ours does. So we allow flexibility, but flexibility as to how to 
achieve the goal of energy efficiency, not flexibility as to how much 
energy efficiency to offer.
  I hope the bill, as essentially presented, or a couple of amendments 
I think are relatively noncontroversial, are accepted.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to respond just a little bit to the 
gentleman's comments on the amendment I'm going to put forward. I don't 
want the misunderstanding of the Members to think that my amendment 
would remove green building from any of the HOPE VI projects. It's a 
different philosophy in how we're putting forth the idea to meet green 
standards. And he clarified that. His is a mandatory. Mine is a 
flexible, one among many. But I do believe in the philosophy of 
building more green and more efficient buildings, we've got new 
technology coming online. Why tie ourselves to a certain standard?
  At this point I would like to recognize Mr. Gilchrest for 3 minutes, 
the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. I'm not on the committee of jurisdiction where the 
HOPE project originated, but I'm interested in this issue because I was 
born in what would now be called a housing project, 62 years ago. It 
was a housing apartment complex built many decades ago, a few years 
before I was born, for young families, for soldiers serving in World 
War II and certainly then, for the baby boom generation, for military 
people coming home looking for places to live.
  This place was called Cora Place. Now I still don't know to this day 
whether it was a K or a C, Cora Place. But it was a vast housing unit 
apartment complex for young families. I was born there 62 years ago, 
and there's still young families there. That place has still survived 
all these decades. It was built adequately. It was built with good 
construction techniques. It was built with good standards. It was not 
rebuilt. It was not demolished and rebuilt. It was built in a way, in a 
form, in a complex where it became a community, not an isolated pocket 
of poverty. It was built for a community. There are small businesses 
there. The standards of construction were fine. You don't waste heat. 
You don't waste water. You don't waste electricity. It was built for 
young American families. It was built for a community where there could 
be dignity, where there could be small businesses, where people could 
come together and exchange information and feel like they belonged. 
That's what we need to do today. That's what HOPE VI is all about. 
That's what this committee, in a bipartisan fashion, wants to pursue.
  I also want to talk about one of the provisions in this bill called 
``green buildings and technical assistance.'' And I want to say that 
what this does to today's communities is what happened 62 years ago. We 
want to do it right the first time, not the second time. The Federal 
Government is not requiring one standard. The Federal Government, in 
this bill, is requiring a standard that is flexible so it can change 
and provide for new technology.
  This is a standard that reduces and eliminates waste. It's a standard 
that promotes local businesses and local communities. It's a standard 
that provides adequate housing for those who otherwise would not have 
adequate housing. The high cost of housing has increased the high cost 
of renting, and the peripheral outside effect is that it has increased 
homelessness.
  So HOPE VI goes a long way into eliminating that problem in our 
communities. It is not a mandate to comply with one standard. It does 
not, this text in this bill, create a monopoly. It does not require 
certification fees. You save way more energy, way more energy than up-
front costs. And it uses standards of efficiency that are off-the-shelf 
technology. So I encourage my colleagues to vote for the bill.
  Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, hardworking 
member of our subcommittee, Congressman Sires, 2 minutes.
  Mr. SIRES. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3524, the HOPE 
VI Improvement Reauthorization Act of 2007.
  As a former mayor in New Jersey, I have a unique perspective of this 
program. Its impact on local communities is real and is positive. 
Beyond the obvious impact of cleaning up distressed public housing 
units and providing people with housing, HOPE VI generates economic 
activity in the community. New housing brings new residents. New 
residents bring new infrastructure and spurs new businesses. These new 
residents shop and dine and invest in their community. The new 
businesses hire employees, which has a positive impact on the economy.
  The benefits of this program do not end there. Research indicates 
that HOPE VI increases per capita income of residents and decreases 
unemployment rates. That same research shows that this program 
decreases the number of households receiving public assistance and 
decreases violent crimes in surrounding communities.
  A reauthorization of this HOPE VI is long overdue. I applaud the 
efforts of the chairman and Chairwoman Waters for bringing this to the 
floor today.
  And I will share a story. I recently visited in Elizabeth, New 
Jersey, part of my district, a program of HOPE VI. I knew that area 
before, and the transformation is beyond. As I went there the other 
day, a new restaurant opened up. People were hired to work in that 
restaurant. So this program does work. Is it perfect? Nothing is 
perfect, but it certainly works. And I hope that everybody supports 
this.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Chairman, I would now like to yield 9 minutes to 
the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Bachus of Alabama.
  Mr. BACHUS. Since HOPE VI, we've had a lot of success. I think the 
program is a success. How the program has been a success is not as 
simple as simply replacing units on-site. In fact, most of the 
residents of these housing projects have actually moved to other 
communities through vouchers. The main thing, I think, to remember is 
that it has eliminated some of the most dangerous and distressed public 
housing in the country and created livable, mixed-income communities; 
and that's very good.
  To date, there have been over 200 HOPE VI grants, and to various 
housing agencies. Almost all of them have been a success. These grants 
have been used to fund public/private partnerships that have changed 
landscapes once populated by failed housing projects and crime-ridden 
neighborhoods into vibrant mixed-income, mixed-use communities, 
providing quality, affordable housing for those in need.
  I think anybody on the Financial Services Committee who's attended 
these public hearings has heard the testimony of the living conditions 
that

[[Page H305]]

these tenants in public housing were living under. High crime areas, 
vandalism, dilapidated conditions, paint peeling off, lead, plumbing 
that didn't work, electricity that didn't work, heating that was 
inadequate, areas where there was such a concentration of crime that 
many of the youth growing up in those communities really had no or very 
few role models.
  In my home State of Alabama, there are several examples of projects 
where HOPE VI has made a tremendous difference. For example, Park Place 
is a 12-block section of downtown Birmingham that a HOPE VI grant has 
transformed into an attractive, mixed-income housing development. Not 
only has it decreased the concentration of low-income residents living 
in a crime-infested area with very few prospects of jobs, but it's also 
improved the surrounding communities. The surrounding communities, the 
property values were going down. It was more dangerous. And those areas 
have been improved. The commercial district downtown has improved. One 
of the stories that we need to realize is not only the improvement that 
we see in the community that was replaced or rehabilitated, but the 
community around it.
  But most residents, if you track where they've gone, they have 
chosen, through vouchers, and a lot of them just by simply turning down 
housing assistance, they've moved to other communities, and they're 
doing quite well. They've moved to communities where they think there 
are better schools. The students of those residents who have actually 
moved and not returned, they're doing better, on the average, than 
those residents who chose to return.
  In New Orleans, we actually found a lot of people chose not to go 
back to the original community because they did not trust the public 
housing authority. And that's one reason that we've tried to advocate 
not simply replacing these units on a one-by-one basis, and re-
duplicating a bad situation.
  The Tuxedo Court project in Birmingham is going to replace 488 
obsolete units of aging buildings with 331 modern, for-purchase rental 
homes. All the residents who are not going to relocate there have been 
given vouchers, or if they qualify, public assistance, and many of them 
have chosen to move to communities across town.
  Our vision, and I think the vision of both Democrats and Republicans 
on this committee, should be for the residents of those communities to 
better themselves and better their living conditions, their housing. It 
should be vibrant, mixed-use communities with good housing, safe 
streets, strong schools.
  In a previous debate, I mentioned a public housing project in 
downtown Atlanta called East Lake. East Lake was so dangerous that the 
police refused to patrol it. And it's not alone. Children slept in 
bathtubs or closets for fear of being hit by random gunfire.
  A developer by the name of Tom Cousins proposed replacing this crime-
ridden project, where there was very little hope for the residents, 
very little future for the youth, with a mixed-income community. And 
that's been done. Today, professionals, accountants, doctors, lawyers, 
people with good income, are living side by side with families still on 
subsidized and on public assistance. The end result is a sharp 
reduction in crime in East Lake. But the more important result is a 
sharp increase in the level of academic achievement and success among 
the youth living in that community.
  Now, for all the good, we are concerned about this bill. First of 
all, it eliminates the Main Street Revitalization program, which was 
for the benefit of smaller communities.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BACHUS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. As the gentleman may know, an amendment 
is going to be offered to restore that, and I agree with the gentleman 
that that amendment should be accepted.
  Mr. BACHUS. I thank the chairman for that.
  Another problem that we have with it is eliminating the demolition-
only grants, because on certain occasions we feel like public housing, 
there may be adequate housing other places, or vouchers or a better 
system. But I think one of the main causes of concerns we have, and the 
gentlelady from West Virginia, is the green requirements. While some of 
the provisions have merit, we believe that they have, number one, the 
unintended result of reducing the number of affordable housing units 
that can actually be constructed under HOPE VI.
  In fact, I have a letter I would like to introduce from the 
homebuilders, but also a coalition of National Affordable Housing 
Management Association. And basically what they say here is that the 
additional cost burdens of these particular green compliances will 
greatly discourage the development of these projects and drive up the 
cost substantially.

                                                 January 14, 2008.
     Hon. Barney Frank,
     Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Maxine Waters,
     Chair, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, 
         Committee on Financial Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Spencer Bachus,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Financial Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Shelley Moore Capito,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Housing and Community 
         Opportunity, Committee on Financial Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Committee Leaders: The undersigned organizations, who 
     work collectively in support of affordable housing and 
     promoting sustainability in our nation's housing stock, are 
     writing to express our opposition to H.R. 3524, The HOPE VI 
     Improvement and Reauthorization Act, in its current form. We 
     do appreciate that the forthcoming Manager's amendment will 
     make several important improvements to the bill. For example, 
     we support allowing HUD to grant a waiver to the one-for-one 
     replacement provision under certain circumstances. However, 
     we suggest that HUD also should be able to provide waivers 
     related to funding realities. If one-for-one replacement 
     renders a deal infeasible, there should be enough flexibility 
     to waive that provision. We also believe that extending the 
     period in which all replacement units must be provided after 
     demolition has been completed from 12 to 36 months is very 
     sensible. HOPE VI projects must contend with many variables, 
     from weather conditions, securing local approvals and working 
     extensively with tenant groups. All of these factors can 
     increase construction periods beyond what otherwise might be 
     considered normal.
       However, while our organizations have long-supported this 
     important housing program, there are several provisions in 
     the bill which we believe are so onerous that private 
     developers may no longer be able to participate, jeopardizing 
     the very existence of the program. Specifically, our main 
     objection is that the legislation will unfairly and 
     unnecessarily drive up development costs by mandating 
     compliance with privately developed green building rating 
     systems. The additional cost burdens for green compliance 
     adds further impediments to an already complicated financing 
     structure for HOPE VI projects and could greatly discourage 
     developers from undertaking future projects. In addition, 
     there are provisions related to the occupancy of HOPE VI 
     projects that are unclear and could be interpreted to prevent 
     owners from instituting sensible eligibility standards.


                         Green Building Mandate

       Our members are committed to working on increasing the 
     sustainability of affordable housing, as well as keeping 
     housing affordable in all markets. We believe that mandatory 
     green requirements in the HOPE VI program will have 
     unintended consequences that far outweigh any sustainability 
     gains. Dramatic reductions in additional HOPE VI projects is 
     a very real possibility because of increased costs that 
     developers would have to finance based on the proposed 
     provisions in the bill. There is a limited amount of HOPE 
     VI funding, and a developer's ability to leverage a 
     significant amount of additional financing is limited. In 
     addition, total development costs (TDC) are capped. Unless 
     TDCs are allowed to increase (or alternatively, the costs 
     of complying with the green building requirements are 
     excluded from TDC), the developers may be forced to scrimp 
     on other important aspects of these developments to pay 
     for costly green components. Decisions on what aspects of 
     green development can be afforded in these properties 
     should be left to the developers and their partner public 
     housing agencies. HUD has recognized this as a practicable 
     approach, as demonstrated by its implementation of green 
     building incentives in the Mark-to-Market program.
       Further, the specific reference to only one green rating 
     system will stifle innovation and technology advancement in 
     all aspects of green building. During a time when green 
     building is growing exponentially and programs are competing 
     to be the ``greenest,'' Congress should not be codifying one 
     inflexible benchmark that cannot adapt to future 
     sustainability needs. Congress should not be

[[Page H306]]

     using the HOPE VI program to pick winners and losers in the 
     green building arena.
       Keeping green building as flexible and competitive as 
     possible reaps the greatest environmental and economic 
     rewards. Mandating a specific green building requirement for 
     HOPE VI is short-sighted, overly restrictive and costly and 
     is a disservice to community affordable housing needs. 
     Sustainable green design for all housing markets should be 
     protected from government mandates and rigid statutory 
     benchmarks. Green building means something different in every 
     climate zone, just as every market has differing demands for 
     affordable housing.
       It is important to understand that opposing a green 
     building mandate in no way signals opposition to 
     sustainability or environmental conservation. Green building 
     should not be driven to the lowest common denominator or 
     serve as a deterrent for development of these vital housing 
     projects. Opposing the green building requirements in this 
     bill demonstrates awareness that green building is an 
     important variable that needs to be incorporated into HOPE VI 
     in a manner that is functional, flexible, and encourages more 
     energy and resource-efficient construction in the future.


                         eligibility provisions

       The Limitation on Exclusion provision (Section 7(m)(2)) 
     could be interpreted to place limits on the public housing 
     agencies' (PHAs) ability to establish reasonable eligibility 
     criteria for occupancy in the new HOPE VI development. The 
     provision says that replacement housing under a HOPE VI plan 
     must be subject to the same policies, practices, standards, 
     and criteria regarding waiting lists, tenant screening 
     (including screening criteria such as credit checks), and 
     occupancy that apply to other housing owned, managed or 
     assisted by the PHA.
       However, the provision goes on to say that a household 
     cannot be excluded from the HOPE VI development, except to 
     the extent specifically provided by other provisions of 
     Federal law (e.g., relating to safety and security in public 
     and assisted housing; ineligibility of drug criminals, 
     illegal drug users, alcohol abusers and dangerous sex 
     offenders; as well as preferences for the elderly and 
     disabled; and persons convicted of methamphetamine offenses). 
     This seems to preclude PHAs from screening for credit 
     worthiness or other typical screening criteria.
       We support holding all households to the same standards. We 
     note that HUD's Housing Choice Voucher Handbook encourages 
     PHAs and owners to adopt screening policies that take into 
     consideration tenancy history related to payment of rent and 
     utility bills; caring for a unit and premises; respecting the 
     rights of others to the peaceful enjoyment of their housing; 
     drug-related criminal activity or other criminal activity 
     that is a threat to life, safety or property of others and 
     compliance with other essential conditions of tenancy. The 
     proposed provision in H.R. 3524 could be interpreted to 
     undermine HUD's existing policies and create an unfair 
     disadvantage to other eligible tenants who wish to move into 
     a HOPE VI property. Further, it appears that the bill may 
     provide a de facto preference to applicants that have been 
     released from a prison or other correctional facility. It is 
     the responsibility of the owner/landlord to ensure a safe 
     environment for all residents, and such a preference may 
     preclude their ability to honor that responsibility.
       The owners of HOPE VI developments must be able to 
     implement good business practices to attract investors and 
     lenders. Otherwise, the developments will be viewed as too 
     risky, and the developer's financing prospects will be in 
     jeopardy. We suggest that these provisions be clarified to 
     ensure that PHAs can continue to set fair and reasonable 
     screening and eligibility standards that are applied to all 
     households.


                                 other

       We believe that the provision eliminating HUD's ability to 
     award demolition grants should be revisited. There may be 
     circumstances under which a demolition only is warranted. HUD 
     and PHAs should be allowed to retain this current authority.


                                summary

       Our organizations are committed to furthering the 
     sustainability of affordable housing and believe that the 
     success of these efforts lies in the ability of the industry 
     to take advantage of the innovations that are constantly 
     occurring in the market. The provisions in H.R. 3524, The 
     HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act, as currently 
     written, will impede these efforts by mandating the use of 
     one specific system. In addition, owners of HOPE VI 
     properties must be able to establish reasonable and workable 
     occupancy policies that are fair to all prospective tenants 
     in HOPE VI communities.
       Our organizations stand ready to work with the Committee to 
     craft an effective and appropriate way to address green 
     building and eligibility standards within the HOPE VI 
     program. Thank you for your consideration of our views.
       Institute of Real Estate Management.
       National Affordable Housing Management Association.
       National Apartment Association.
       National Association of Home Builders.
       National Multi Housing Council.

  More important, and let me close by saying this, and this is a 
serious problem with this bill, I have a letter from the United 
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. They say that the 
standards we're using in this bill, let me quote them:
  ``If a builder wants to use wood and receive LEED certification,'' 
that's the program we're using, ``they are largely forced to use wood 
products grown and manufactured overseas.''

                              {time}  1115

  ``This puts American workers and American products at a competitive 
disadvantage.''

         United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
                                 Washington, DC, January 11, 2008.
     Hon. Barney Frank, 
     Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Maxine Waters, 
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development, 
         Committee on Financial Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Spencer Bachus,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Financial Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Shelley Moore Capito,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Housing and Community 
         Development Committee on Financial Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairmen Frank and Waters, and Ranking Members Bachus 
     and Capito: On behalf of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters 
     and Joiners of America, I am writing to express our concerns 
     with provisions of H.R. 3524 that would require non-
     residential construction in HOPE VI grant projects to meet 
     the United States Green Building Council's Leadership in 
     Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating criteria.
       For the last four years, the Carpenters have had a great 
     interest in green building legislation as it affects both 
     parts of our union--the part that constructs buildings and 
     the part that harvests and manufactures wood products that 
     are used in them. Therefore, we are strong supporters of 
     green building, but want to ensure that building ``green'' 
     does not result in ``pink'' slips for our members.
       Over this time, we have found a number of important flaws 
     in the LEED system that we believe makes it unsatisfactory 
     for the marketplace and should not be the only standard 
     referenced in legislation.
       Our primary concern is LEED's failure to recognize all 
     credible, sustainable forestry certification programs in its 
     certified wood credit. LEED only provides credit to builders 
     using forest products certified by the Forest Stewardship 
     Council (FSC). No credits are awarded for wood products 
     produced by other companies independently third party 
     certified to the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) 
     Program standard or the American Tree Farm System, the two 
     largest sustainable forest management systems in the United 
     States. These two systems account for over 90 million acres 
     of forestland, yet do not qualify for points under LEED. 
     Therefore, if a builder wants to use wood and receive LEED 
     certification, they are largely forced to use wood products 
     grown or manufactured overseas. This puts American workers 
     and American products at a competitive disadvantage.
       LEED also discriminates against wood compared to other 
     imported building products. LEED credits builders for using 
     ``rapidly renewable materials,'' which are defined as 
     products originating from plants harvested in a 10-year 
     cycle. As you might expect, construction lumber cannot earn 
     this credit since it takes more than ten years for a tree to 
     grow to a usable size and diameter. Instead, if a builder 
     uses exotic crops such as imported bamboo, they can earn the 
     credit.
       As a result of these flaws, we have actively supported 
     other green building systems that are inclusive in regard to 
     the use of wood. One system that we have supported at the 
     national, state and local levels is the Green Building 
     Initiative's Green Globes program. Unlike LEED, it recognizes 
     all the major sustainable forestry programs used in the 
     United States and does not put wood at a disadvantage 
     compared to other building products. Also unlike LEED, Green 
     Globes takes into account the concept of life-cycle analysis, 
     or the cost to operate the building over time.
       As a result, Green Globes has been increasingly recognized 
     by federal agencies and state governments. At the federal 
     level, it has been recognized by the Department of Health and 
     Human Services, the Department of the Interior and the 
     Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, 11 states have 
     written Green Globes into their state green building 
     statutes,
       Therefore, we request that the legislation be modified in 
     order to specifically include other standards, such as Green 
     Globes. Should any amendments be offered to create a process 
     that gives the government the opportunity to review and 
     select a standard, we request that language be included that 
     gives all eligible and viable green building standards equal 
     consideration and ability to participate in the process. We 
     believe that with these changes, we will produce a piece of 
     legislation that meets all of the legislation's goals.
           Sincerely,
                                              Douglas J. McCarron,
                                                General President.


[[Page H307]]


  Number 1, under the standards you've adopted, we won't be using wood, 
when it's one of our greatest renewable resources. We won't be using 
wood. So you will be putting a lot of carpenters and laborers and 
joiners out of work, the framers.
  But second, if you do use wood, you will have to import that wood. 
So, as an article in Slate magazine said, and it's the reason the 
University of Michigan in one of their projects is trying to decide 
whether they want to use this LEED program, LEED, this article in Slate 
magazine actually pointed out that you can put up a bicycle rack and 
you get the same credit as if you used an energy efficient heating 
system. That's wrong.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, to correct that information, I yield 30 
seconds to the chairman, Mr. Frank.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman from Alabama correctly 
quoted the carpenters' letter. The manager's amendment responds to 
that. The manager's amendment, which we are now debating, removes 
reference to the leadership and energy and environmental design. So the 
objection raised by the carpenters we thought had some validity to it, 
and the manager's amendment takes care of it.
  So there is no reference to that. So two of the points the gentleman 
made we agree with, and we're correcting, restoring main street and 
removing any reference to LEED. There will be other differences, but I 
did want to acknowledge this is an example of how we're trying to work 
together.
  Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BACHUS. Would you continue to work with us to make sure that, in 
fact, is possible?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney) 2 minutes.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
her leadership and chairing this important subcommittee and her hard 
work on this bill, along with Chairman Frank, and I rise in very strong 
support of the revitalization, reauthorization of an important program, 
HOPE VI.
  This legislation will increase the annual authorization from $100 
million to $800 million, and it is really a funding housing crisis, 
affordable housing crisis in our Nation. This funding and this program 
is desperately needed.
  In New York City alone, over tens of thousands of people are on the 
waiting list for public housing. This bill requires that all public 
housing units proposed for demolition be replaced on a one-for-one 
basis and that any units demolished will be replaced within 36 months. 
This is tremendously important because people in public housing have no 
other place to go.
  It adds additional tenant protections by requiring public housing 
agencies to monitor and track all households affected by the HOPE VI 
revitalization program, as well as develop a relocation plan that 
provides comparable housing for all relocated residents.
  In an effort to be better stewards of our environment, this bill 
requires all replacement housing and other structures part of the HOPE 
VI development to be built in accordance with flexible green building 
standards, and it's appropriate for the government to have high 
environmental standards. It will be more energy efficient in the future 
and, in the long run, will save taxpayers dollars.
  This bill continues a really important program that revitalizes 
severely distressed public housing and transforms them into safe, 
livable communities. And since its creation, it has provided over 560 
grants, and Congress has appropriated over $6.6 billion in funding.
  It has helped public housing authorities create relationships with 
the private sector and open up opportunities to bring partnerships that 
bring in much-needed resources into struggling communities.
  For example, by 2004, 92 public housing authorities have used $313 
million capital funds to leverage over $1 billion in private 
investment. These funds have been used to modernize and redevelop 
public housing.
  With the crisis in safe, affordable housing we are seeing in our 
country, it is my hope that with our reauthorization of this important 
legislation we can continue the successes of this program.
  I really urge my colleagues to support this program that is vitally 
needed.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Shays), who I mentioned in my opening statement had been very 
integral in reaching what I think is a very good bill, 3 minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I 
thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for bringing out 
this legislation and for their willingness to work on a bipartisan 
basis to get a good bill. And thank you for that.
  I am a strong believer in the HOPE VI program because I've seen its 
unbelievable benefit to my district. We had Southfield Village public 
housing. We converted it into Southwood Square, with a $26 million 
Federal grant, leveraging $79 million to reach $105 million. It has 330 
units, 160 of low-income and 85 of market rental, but the unique thing 
is the 160 and the 85 are all the same units. They are really nice 
units, market rate units.
  So, you may have someone paying market rate, and when they leave, the 
new person may be low-income. There's a guaranteed of the 330 units, 
160 are low-income. It has actually a pool. It has a workout area, and 
it has some wealthy people staying there. They work at successful 
businesses in the greater Stamford community.
  So young kids who have very little income when they see someone 
getting into a BMW, it's not for a drug deal; it's to go to work where 
they are paid well. When young children go to work out, what they hear 
discussed is how someone can make money legitimately.
  It is not a place warehousing the poor, but having all our fellow 
Americans live together, black, white, Hispanic, minorities from all 
areas of the world, with people who have income, minorities as well who 
have income and those who don't. It is an incredible thing to see our 
country come together under a HOPE VI program.
  And besides the 85 units of market rental, you have 15 of affordable 
home ownership. These are townhouses, four-story buildings. And then we 
have Fairfield Court, $19 million of Federal funds leveraging $80 
million, 272 units, 141 of low-income and 131 of affordable rental, 
market rental and affordable home ownership.
  What I see in the HOPE VI grant is a transformation not just of the 
physical outlay of a community and the upgrading of neighborhoods, but 
I'm seeing Americans come together, living like we think we should 
live, together, not separate.
  I rise today in strong support of the reauthorization of the HOPE VI 
program. HOPE VI has transformed rundown housing projects into vibrant 
communities and changed the face of affordable housing throughout the 
country.
  I am grateful to have worked on this reauthorization and am grateful 
for all of the hard work and collaboration of this Committee. 
Specifically, I would like to thank Chairwoman Waters and Ranking 
Member Capito and their staff for their leadership on this important 
program.
  The mixed income communities created through HOPE VI grants epitomize 
the power of public-private partnerships. This reauthorization 
represents a renewed commitment by the Federal Government to revitalize 
our Nation's most distressed public housing.
  Since the creation of HOPE VI, public-private partnerships have 
leveraged significant commitments from private sector resources. For 
every dollar the Government commits to this revitalization effort, HOPE 
VI projects yield three to four in private funding.
  In light of a serious shortage of affordable housing in Connecticut's 
Fourth District and throughout the Nation, it is imperative we 
encourage the utilization of all available resources to provide 
quality, safe, and affordable housing for our Nation's neediest 
citizens.
  I have experienced first hand the transformation that HOPE VI grants 
are capable of making. We have two incredible HOPE VI sites in 
Stamford, and I wish Members and the administration could see that 
transformation. If they did, I doubt they would ever dream of 
eliminating this program.
  Southfield Village received a $26 million HOPE VI grant, which 
leveraged $79 million in funds to create Southwood Square. The 
development features 330 units, 160 of which are low-income public 
housing units, 85 are market rate units, and 15 are affordable 
homeownership units.
  In 2004, Fairfield Court received a HOPE VI grant of $19 million that 
will leverage $80 million. This project will house 141 low-income

[[Page H308]]

units and 131 affordable rental, market rate rental, and affordable 
homeownership units.
  At these mixed-income communities, low-income families and those 
paying market rent live side-by-side, and have the opportunity to learn 
and grow from one another. They are safe places to live where children 
can grow and play together and where residents are involved in the 
planning and growth of their community.
  When the Federal Government demonstrates its interest in improving 
the housing needs of low income families, the community responds. I 
call my colleagues today to reaffirm our commitment to this program, 
which has significantly expanded upon affordable housing options for 
families throughout the country.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), a hardworking member of our 
committee.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chairman, let me start by thanking Chairman Frank 
and Chairwoman Waters for bringing this critical and much-needed 
legislation to the floor.
  The HOPE VI program was developed as a result of recommendations by 
the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing, which 
was charged with proposing a national action plan to eradicate severely 
distressed public housing. The commission recommended revitalization in 
three general areas: physical improvements, management improvements, 
and social and community services to address resident needs. As a 
result, the HOPE VI program was developed in 1993.
  Grants are used by public housing authorities to fund capital costs 
of major rehabilitation, new construction and physical improvements, 
demolition of severely distressed public housing, acquisition of sites 
for off-site construction, and community and supportive service 
programs for residents. Any public housing authority that has severely 
distressed public housing units in its inventory is eligible to apply.
  In each of the past 5 years, the Bush administration has proposed 
elimination of the HOPE VI program, requesting no money for this 
successful program, threatening to strand tens of thousands of low-
income families and children to live in substandard public housing.
  But the Congress, under both Republican and Democratic majorities, 
has continued to fund the program. In 2006, $100 million was 
appropriated, and last month, $100 million was included in the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act. This reauthorization of HOPE VI is long overdue.
  In the Fifth Congressional District and in the City of Minneapolis 
alone, my local public housing authority has estimated that they need 
over $205 million just to maintain 5,883 public housing units at only a 
fair condition. Again, let me repeat this. My district needs $205 
million to keep these public housing units from not falling below basic 
standards. The backlog of units in desperate need of refurbishment and 
rehabilitation is a result of 7 long years of neglect of public 
infrastructure.
  This is why I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this bill. By 
passing H.R. 3524, we move a step closer to recognizing the rights for 
all citizens.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a member of the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, President Reagan once said that the nearest thing to 
eternal life on Earth is a Federal program, and I don't think there is 
any better case study than perhaps the HOPE VI program. If there was 
ever a program that cried out for termination, it's this one; 
termination so that the money used for this program can be returned to 
hardworking American families.
  Many of us are acquainted with the history of the program, begun in 
1992 with a very noble purpose of taking 86,000 units of severely 
distressed public housing and replacing them, demolishing them.
  Well, guess what, Madam Chairman; it achieved its mission. But 
somewhere along the line we had this thing in Washington known as 
mission creep. What we should have done is probably given all the 
employees of the program a bonus, throw them a big party and say thank 
you for doing something good and achieving the mission of your 
particular program. But instead, somehow the program goes on and on and 
on.
  Now, the Office of Management and Budget has said that this program 
is ineffective. If you look at their part rating of the Office of 
Management and Budget and start to study it, they ask very specific 
questions about the program, one of which is: Does the program address 
a specific and existing problem, interest or need? And the answer is 
no. The program has accomplished its primary goal to demolish 100,000 
severely distressed public housing units by 2003.
  Another question in the part rating of the Office of Management and 
Budget: Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or 
duplicative of any Federal, State, local or private effort? The answer 
again, no. HOPE VI is one of a select number of tools available to 
housing authorities to revitalize distressed or obsolete public 
housing.
  So again, number one, we had a program that accomplished its original 
mission. We now have a program that is duplicative of other housing 
programs. And I know there are many who come to the floor who are very 
sincere and passionate in their belief that the only way to help low-
income people is through government housing programs. I have a 
different philosophy. I have a different set of principles.
  We already have 80-plus Federal housing programs, and the budget for 
Federal housing programs has almost doubled in the last 10 years, from 
$15.4 billion to more than $30 billion now.
  And this percentage increase, almost double, is a rate, Madam 
Chairman, a rate of increase that is higher than veterans spending, 
education spending, energy spending, transportation spending, 
international affairs spending, and even Social Security over that same 
time period.
  So, relative to our budget priorities, it's very hard to argue that 
somehow Federal housing programs have been shortchanged. I fear that 
HOPE VI simply compounds failure. We take failed housing projects, we 
start to demolish them, and then we fail to get rid of the program.
  Again, I understand that some people and many on the other side of 
the aisle do not agree with my vision. They believe the only way to 
help is through other government programs, and if so, I would ask this, 
and I'm sorry that this didn't happen in committee.
  I offered an amendment to transfer this money to the section 8 
program. I think there are a number of challenges with section 8, but I 
certainly see it as a superior form of government assistance than these 
other programs.

                              {time}  1130

  And Member after Member on the other side of the aisle has complained 
that we have insufficient resources for section 8. Well, here's an 
opportunity. Now, unfortunately, that amendment was not ruled in order. 
I hope that one day maybe I can work with the majority in finding ways 
to take less effective government housing programs and perhaps transfer 
funds to more effective housing programs.
  I also find it quite curious that many Members on the other side of 
the aisle complained about this program in hearings and in markups. So 
they complained about it and then sit here and reauthorize it.
  And there are two other reasons that we should not support this. One 
is, it puts us on a trajectory to help double-spending to the next 
generation. Now, sometimes we have to make some tough choices. We are 
going to double taxes on the next generation if we don't do something 
about spending today.
  And we should never forget that the best housing program is a job. 
And the greatest threat to jobs today is the threatened tax increases 
of the majority. That's where we ought to get our affordable housing.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, this would be an excellent time for me to 
call on the major cosponsor of this bill, someone who has been 
consistently involved with HOPE VI ever since it was originated.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Mel Watt.
  Mr. WATT. I thank the Chair of the subcommittee for moving me up in 
the order so that I can address some of the misconceptions that we've 
just heard.

[[Page H309]]

  I'm holding in my hand a report that was authored, in fact one-third 
of the report that was authored, by HUD in 1996, about 4 or 5 years 
into the HOPE VI program. And if we thought that this program was only 
about demolishing distressed public housing, as my colleague who just 
spoke would have us believe, we should read the report. It did identify 
86,000 severely distressed public housing units that needed to be 
demolished and replaced in a different kind of setting. It went on to 
say that we needed to address the needs of the residents. And the 
commission proposed providing increased funding for supportive 
services, creating a national system to coordinate social and 
supportive services to enable residents to become self-sufficient, and 
devising a system that requires public housing agencies to solicit 
resident input into the solutions.
  And the things we have been complaining about, the gentleman is 
correct, we have been complaining about the HOPE VI program because it 
has only been about demolishing public housing and not doing any of the 
services that were originally contemplated by the program. And the 
amendments in this reauthorization bill are designed to attack those 
very shortcomings and the original objectives that HOPE VI was designed 
to accomplish. Number one, not only demolition, but one-for-one 
replacement is in this bill; input by residents is in this bill; 
supportive services, increased funding is in this bill.
  So the gentleman is absolutely correct: those of us who have been 
complaining about the program acknowledge that it has not accomplished 
the objectives that were set for the programs by Republicans, not 
Democrats, to replace and eliminate severely distressed housing and to 
provide the kind of support that is necessary for residents of public 
housing to be successful. That's exactly what this bill does, and I 
encourage support for the bill.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I would 
like to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member 
of the subcommittee who has never missed a meeting, Congressman Al 
Green.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I thank you, the 
ranking member, and all of the other Members on the other side, Members 
on both sides. This is a bipartisan effort.
  Madam Chairman, please let me dispel any notion that there is a 
surplus of affordable available housing in this country. In fact, in 
the State of Texas alone, we have a need for 437,000 units, and we are 
third in the Nation. New York is number two, with 528,000 units needed; 
California, 830,000 units. There is no surplus of available affordable 
housing. But we're talking about the public housing units, and there is 
no surplus of available public housing units.
  Let me share a brief vignette with you. I had the privilege and 
honor, the pre-eminent privilege, if you will, of traveling to New 
Orleans with our subcommittee Chair, the Honorable Maxine Waters. While 
we were there, we visited the public housing units, and we actually 
talked to tenants. There were tenants who were pleading with us to give 
them the opportunity to return to what they called their homes. These 
were not just pieces of trash to them. These were places where they 
have memories, where they had hopes, where they had aspirations. And 
they were being denied access to property that they believed that they 
could live in. Now, was it to the standard that you and I my might want 
to live in? No. To the standards of those who live in the sweets of 
life, they were not; but to the standards of those who live in the 
streets of life, they were above standard. If you've got a choice of 
living on the streets or living in units that are not suitable for 
those who have much, you will choose to live in the units that are 
available to you.
  I regret that some of us seem to think that the best way to help 
people who are living in conditions that we find unacceptable is to 
cause them to have no place to live at all. Now, there is something 
wrong with that kind of thinking. And at some point, we've got to 
consider what the people need, and not see these as projects. I beg 
that we support this legislation. Keep people off the streets of life.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to recognize the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), for 3 minutes.
  Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chairman, Members of this body, let me say that 
there is a difference of opinion on our side and different opinions on 
our side. But I do believe that one thing ought to be clarified, and I 
believe I share this opinion with all my colleagues on this side. We 
believe the purpose of HOPE VI is not simply to replace a failed 
housing project model with another public housing project or community. 
We believe the purpose that all of us have, Republicans and Democrats, 
is to help those families in those communities have a better life and a 
better future, and hope.
  As I think the Urban Institute and others have found, the majority of 
those residents, and I don't dispute what the gentleman from Texas 
said, there are and there will be residents that will say I want to go 
back to that community. But, hopefully, and one thing HOPE VI does, 
that community is replaced by a much better community, a much better 
mixed-income community where there is more hope, there is less crime, 
there is less poverty, and there are residents in those communities 
that can actually help those children get jobs. But most, and every 
study that has looked at this, and maybe someone on your side will 
correct me, most, if not every, study has shown that the average 
resident of that community is going to choose not to come back to that 
same location, but to relocate to another area because in most cases 
the area they would relocate to is closer to their job, it's closer to 
a school, or if not a school, it's closer to a higher performing 
school, and they choose, through a voucher, to relocate. In fact, a 
substantial minority of those residents relocate to another community, 
get a better job, get a better income, and move totally off public 
assistance.
  There are a lot of fond memories in those communities, but there are 
a lot of people trapped in a circle of poverty in those communities and 
surrounded by criminal elements. And when we do this one-for-one model, 
I believe we are taking resources where we could give people the choice 
of relocating elsewhere and reestablishing what we had that we tore 
down.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from 
Wisconsin, who has been so much involved in this issue, Gwen Moore.
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Thank you, Madam Chairman. HOPE VI is not 
just a tremendously successful housing program; it's a program that 
revitalizes entire communities.
  When you have an area with thousands of people in dense public 
housing communities, it's essential that we disperse poverty and create 
communities within mixed-income groups. HOPE VI has had enormous 
success at doing just that.
  I would like to remind my colleagues that HOPE VI is not some liberal 
Democrat program; it was created under a Republican administration, the 
previous President Bush. However, for the past 5 years, this President 
Bush has proposed ending this vital program, claiming that it has 
already accomplished its goal. Clearly, he's mistaken.
  Secondly, I just want to remind the body that we're experiencing a 
mortgage crisis of gargantuan, indeed, global proportions. The bad 
actors in the mortgage market have found fertile ground among families 
who have yearned for decent housing. They have preyed upon these 
families with these awful mortgage products because of the dearth of 
affordable rental units. HOPE VI is an answer to prayer for these 
families who may not be able to achieve homeownership, but deserve 
decent and affordable housing.
  Mrs. CAPITO. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from West Virginia has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. WATERS. I would like to inquire as to how much time I have left, 
Madam Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey, Congressman Bill Pascrell.
  Mr. PASCRELL. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3524.

[[Page H310]]

  I can provide testimony here. I was a mayor. In fact, in the final 
years before I came to the Congress of the United States, we built HOPE 
VI housing. It was successful. And the community decided what that 
housing would be like and the community decided what the standards 
would be of living. In the same area, in the same area that I've just 
heard we should move people out of, you want to lift up. That's what 
hope is all about. That's what HOPE VI is all about.
  So I can testify to the success. Come to Paterson, New Jersey, and 
see how HOPE VI operates. And we want to provide other areas of 
buildings that are falling down. Why should tenants have to live in 
those other buildings in that same situation? We want to give hope to 
those people as well, to provide better housing.
  HOPE VI grants are used by public housing authorities to fund major 
rehab and demolition. I urge everyone to vote for this legislation.
  Ms. WATERS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 
Danny Davis.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I represent one of the largest 
concentrations of public housing in the United States of America in the 
third largest city. And I can assure you that the mayor of the City of 
Chicago strongly supports HOPE VI. The Governor of Illinois strongly 
supports HOPE VI. Every member of our delegation from the City of 
Chicago strongly supports HOPE VI. It gives hope to those individuals 
who are homeless, who have given up, who are left out.
  I strongly urge passage of this legislation. And let's keep the hope 
in it.

                              {time}  1145

  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a gentleman who has 
been very much involved in this issue, Congressman Elijah Cummings.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for 
her leadership and to you, Chairman Frank, and all of the members of 
the committee.
  Madam Chairman, this is a very important piece of legislation 
involving what we have, HOPE VI projects. And I just want to correct 
Mr. Bachus. Two of those projects are within six blocks of my house, so 
I deal with these folks every day. I talk to them. I wish we had more 
HOPE VI projects because I will never forget when we opened one of 
them. The area had been drug infested, a highrise, and when we opened 
it up, literally a lot of residents came back and they were crying 
because they were going to move in. There were others who couldn't move 
in because we did not have enough housing. I will never forget that 
day. I said this is like having Andy of Mayberry in the middle of our 
community. And it is. Children are able to play. Men staying out late 
at night playing checkers. People can leave their bikes out. A 
wonderful life and giving hope. That's what it's all about.
  So I want to thank Ms. Waters and Chairman Frank for including in 
this legislation, as part of their manager's amendment, certain items 
that we included. And I want to thank you very much for your 
leadership.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and 
I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I would like to inquire how much time I 
have left.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has 1 minute remaining.
  Ms. WATERS. I will yield that 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy and her 
leadership on this.
  Madam Chairman, I come from a community that took almost 500 units of 
World War II-era public housing and replaced it with almost 1,000 
units, including 230 that were unrestricted market rate. It was an 
anchor for revitalizing the community. It leveraged three-to-one 
investment from the private sector, and it was built according to 
environmentally sustainable standards.
  I cannot say how strongly I support this legislation to be a 
blueprint for how HOPE VI can make a difference for public housing and 
community revitalization around America. I strongly urge support for 
this legislation and rejection of efforts to water it down. Use this 
model. Make it work. You will be proud.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank all the speakers 
for discussing what I think is a good program, HOPE VI. On this side of 
the aisle, even though the chairmen of the full committee and 
subcommittee have made great strides in terms of the manager's 
amendment in terms of answering some of our concerns, but we still have 
some concerns. And you are going to hear this through the amendment 
process, whether it's one-on-one replacement, demolition only, and my 
amendment on the green communities.
  So I appreciate HOPE VI's successes. I think we have heard from a lot 
of Members who have had individual successes in their own districts. I 
reiterate the success in my district was from a demolition-only grant, 
and I've seen how the community can benefit and the housing conditions 
can improve and the quality of life improve at the same time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the passage 
of H.R. 3524, the ``HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 
2007.'' This bipartisan bill allows public housing agencies to continue 
to improve the lives of families in public housing through the 
revitalization of severely distressed public housing. Throughout 
America, there are tens of thousands of working families who are in 
desperate need of affordable housing, but are unable to obtain it, due 
to a shortage of sufficient public housing units. Passage of H.R. 3524 
will dramatically improve the lives of those from low and moderate 
incomes who are having difficulty finding decent and affordable 
housing.
  In Detroit, there are scores of families who are on the public 
housing waiting list, and are in dire need of affordable housing. Many 
of these families are forced to stay in homeless shelters, sleep in 
expensive hotels, or stay with friends and relatives until they can 
find permanent housing. This bill will provide direct assistance to 
low-income individuals and families in Detroit who will now have access 
to more affordable housing units, given that cities and towns across 
America will have increased federal funding to construct affordable 
housing units.
  H.R. 3524 also ensures that the HOPE VI program does not contribute 
to the loss of public housing. It requires public housing agencies 
replace any demolished public housing unit with another comparable 
unit. Furthermore, the legislation gives agencies flexibility in the 
location of replacement housing by allowing replacement units to be 
provided in on- site mixed-income housing developments; and in other 
areas where the public housing agency has jurisdiction.
  One of the most important benefits of H.R. 3524 is that more 
Americans will receive expanded housing opportunities through ensuring 
that families are able to move back into replacement housing units by 
prohibiting unreasonably stringent rescreening policies and making 
residents who are otherwise eligible for public housing also eligible 
for a HOPE VI unit.
  The bill also encourages resident involvement in the redevelopment 
planning phases for new affordable housing. This is a critically 
important provision because it will help ensure that communities 
impacted by housing redevelopment will have a say in where they are 
going to live. Also, H.R. 3524 requires the monitoring and tracking of 
displaced residents by requiring housing authorities to maintain 
current contact information for each affected household while the 
mixed-income community is being developed. It is also a progressive 
bill, in that it implements green building standards in order to 
provide long-term energy efficiency and savings.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Chairman, I am obliged to speak up on the HOPE VI 
bill before us today, particularly because of the District's track 
record has made this city a shining success story, the fourth largest 
recipient of HOPE VI funding in the Nation, and an innovative leader in 
HOPE VI projects spurred on by federal funds available until recently, 
and the District's success in obtaining HOPE VI grants. I have devoted 
considerable time and effort to help the city obtain these grants. The 
great success the city has had in the stiff, nationwide competition it 
has faced in seeking each grant it has won, greatly energized by its 
own efforts. Even now, the District of Columbia has a grant pending.
  HOPE VI has been the functional equivalent of a federal government 
stamp of approval. The District provides a fabulous example of how a 
little government money can act as a magnet for private and nonprofit 
funds that otherwise would not be available. Having received over $140 
million in HOPE VI grants, the District has been able to maximize every 
grant dollar, leveraging the grant awards at a ratio of 1 to 7 to 
attract unusually large

[[Page H311]]

amounts of public and private funds, $740 million of non-government 
funding to five HOPE VI sites in the District.
  A brief sampling of HOPE VI successes in the city illustrates the 
incredible economic impact that the grants have had. The H Street 
Barracks in Ward 6 is the hottest retail strip under HOPE VI. The 
District's first HOPE VI development, the Town Homes in Ward 6, not far 
from where we stand today, has been occupied by District residents for 
over eight years. In its prior life, the Town Homes was known as the 
Ellen Wilson Dwellings and stood abandoned for eight years, depressing 
the vibrancy of the surrounding community. However, a $26 million HOPE 
VI grant, awarded in 1993, transformed the public housing units into 
134 cooperative, mixed-income town homes, with 33 families at 0 percent 
to 24 percent of area median income, AMI, 34 families at 25 percent to 
50 percent of AMI, and 67 families at 50 percent to 115 percent of AMI.
  One of the most ambitious HOPE VI projects undertaken nationwide is 
transforming the Arthur Capper/Carrollsburg Dwellings, a 23-acre 758-
unit public housing complex near the Washington Navy Yard and the 
Southeast Federal Center, into a revitalized residential part of 
general Anacostia waterfront revitalization, one of the largest urban 
redevelopment areas in the country. The Arthur Capper/Carrollsburg 
development is the first HOPE VI site in the country to provide one-
for-one replacement of demolished public housing units. The $34.9 
million grant award has been leveraged to provide a total of over $424 
million for the creation of 1,562 rental and home ownership units, 
replacing the demolished units with 707 public housing units, 525 
affordable rental units and 330 market rate homes for purchase, for a 
total of 1,562 new units, and additional office space, neighborhood 
retail space and a community center.
  One of the best examples of how HOPE VI grants have helped DC 
communities is the lowest-income ward in the District of Columbia, Ward 
8, where HOPE VI developments are transforming an entire ward. Ward 8 
leads the city in housing starts and new rental housing. A Giant Food 
grocery store near the Henson Ridge HOPE VI development is the only 
supermarket in the ward and the largest in the region. The Henson Ridge 
HOPE VI across the street gave Giant an immediate customer base and now 
draws the entire ward.
  HOPE VI has been nothing short of a veritable economic engine to 
drive the reinvigoration of entire communities. It would be a national 
tragedy for Congress to allow HOPE VI to expire rather than building on 
the success of the District and other cities. The investment by the 
government pales in comparison to the return generated. I strongly 
support H.R. 3524 to reauthorize the HOPE VI program for the next eight 
years with up to $800 million dollars a year, and I urge my colleagues 
to do the same.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 3524, 
the HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2007. As the name of 
this program suggests, the revitalization of distressed public housing 
brings hope to millions of Americans--the hope of living in a community 
that cherishes family values, the hope of enjoying a stable living 
environment, and the hope of moving out of poverty and toward self-
sufficiency.
  The HOPE VI program offers residents the ability to improve their 
housing opportunities by transforming severely distressed public 
housing into thriving mixed-income communities. The program has worked 
well since its inception in 1992 and I am pleased that the bill makes a 
number of significant improvements to HOPE VI to ensure that it is even 
stronger into the future. These changes include requiring full 
replacement for lost units and increased involvement of residents in 
planning the redevelopment.
  Furthermore, HOPE VI promotes the efforts of Congress in supporting a 
cleaner environment by requiring compliance with green building 
standards.
  In Georgia's Second Congressional District, we have had resounding 
success with the HOPE VI program. The Housing Authority of Columbus, 
Georgia was awarded a $20 million HOPE VI grant in 2002. The 
revitalization plan called for the demolition of 510 units of severely 
distressed public housing units. At the time of grant award 380 
families lived at Peabody.
  The end result is a new mixed-income community (Ashley Station), set 
on a beautifully designed site which incorporates new housing, new 
parks, and new retail and street improvements. In addition, connections 
were made that improved access to job training, employment 
opportunities, education, health care, and other supportive services. 
HOPE VI allowed for a unique public-private collaboration and more than 
$5,800,000 in ``in-kind'' services were received by the HOPE VI 
residents.
  Invigorating the HOPE VI program will strengthen families, reduce 
poverty, and rejuvenate the spirit of American communities throughout 
the Nation. The program is more than just ``bricks and mortar.'' It 
will make the American dream a reality for millions of low-income 
people. I commend my colleagues for bringing this vital piece of 
legislation to the House floor and I urge their strong support.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 3524, to reauthorize the ``HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization 
Act of 2007,'' introduced by my distinguished colleague from 
California, Representative Maxine Waters. This important legislation 
will reauthorize and make changes to the HOPE VI public housing 
revitalization program. I would like to thank Congresswoman Waters for 
her consistent and dedicated work on this important issue, as well as 
to commend Chairman Frank for his leadership in bringing this bill to 
the floor today.
  Madam Chairman, this legislation reauthorizes, with important 
changes, the HOPE VI public housing revitalization program. Among other 
provisions, it provides for the retention of public housing units, 
protects residents from disruptions resulting from the grant, increases 
resident involvement, and improves the efficiency and expediency of 
construction. The HOPE VI program, created in 1992, has worked to 
improve the Nation's most dilapidated public housing units by providing 
much needed resources to public housing agencies. These funds have 
directly benefited countless Americans, particularly the elderly and 
those with disabilities, partnering with local agencies to improve 
conditions in public housing units and communities.
  In December, we were reminded of the existing problems in our 
Nation's public housing systems when protesters in New Orleans 
skirmished with police in New Orleans, as the City Council unanimously 
voted to destroy 4,500 public housing units. I was appalled that, in 
the holiday season, the citizens of New Orleans and survivors of 
Hurricane Katrina were put in a position in which they had to fight to 
keep a roof over their heads. The residents of New Orleans who saw 
their homes and livelihoods destroyed by natural disaster two years ago 
are far from alone in their need for improved public housing; citizens 
across the country are feeling the acute need for the housing reform 
delivered by this bill.

  My home city of Houston faces unique challenges and opportunities. 
One of the most important of which is dealing with the impact of taking 
in nearly 200,000 Hurricane Katrina evacuees, an unprecedented act of 
generosity for which Houston is famous. According to the 2000 U.S. 
Census, nearly 2 million people live in Houston, the fourth largest 
city in America. When the metropolitan area is taken into account, the 
population swells to approximately 5.2 million. The Houston 
metropolitan grew in population by more than 950,000 people between 
1990 and 2000.
  Madam Chairman, according to the American Community Survey (ACS) 
conducted by the Census Bureau, there are 859,245 total housing units 
in the City of Houston, of which 748,323 are occupied--347,865 are 
occupied by owners (2.5 percent vacancy rate) and 400,458 by renters 
(11.8 percent vacancy rate). Though the average cost of housing and 
rent in Houston is low by national standards, Houston residents still 
face a problem when it comes to affordable housing. According to a 2006 
study by the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, 28.4 percent of 
Houston homeowners and 51 percent of renters in the Houston 
metropolitan area spend more than 30 percent of their monthly pre-tax 
income on housing costs. This makes them ``housing-cost burdened'' as 
defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
  Fully a quarter of Houston renters are ``severely housing-cost 
burdened,'' meaning they pay more than 50 percent of their income in 
housing costs. The National Low Income Housing Coalition, in its report 
Out of Reach in 2006, estimates that in order to afford a 2-bedroom 
apartment at the FMR, a renter would have to earn $14.77 an hour, more 
than two and on-half times the minimum wage.

  The affordability crisis is most pronounced among Houston's poorest 
and disabled households. Among the 83,367 renter households in Houston 
with incomes below 30 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI)--or 
approximately $18,500 in the Houston metropolitan area--more than half, 
56 percent, of them spend more than half of their gross income on 
housing. Another 1 in 6 devotes more than 30 percent of their gross 
income for housing.
  Moreover, there is little federally subsidized housing available to 
those in need. The Housing Authority's waiting list for Section 8 
Housing Choice Vouchers now has been closed for three years and there 
are still more than 10,000 people on the list. The average wait time is 
between 18 months and two years. It is estimated that more than 12,000 
people are homeless on any given night in Houston: 6,583 of them are 
unsheltered and 3,600 of them are chronically homeless.
  Madam Chairman, I support this legislation because it will begin to 
address the serious

[[Page H312]]

housing problems we face in our own local communities, and as a nation. 
Among its many important provisions, this legislation requires that all 
public housing units proposed for demolition be replaced on a one-to-
one basis, guaranteeing the total availability of public housing. This 
requirement will serve to protect low income residents under fair 
housing laws. Further, a mixed-income housing development must be 
provided on the site of the original public housing location and all 
replacement housing units must be located in a mixed-income community. 
The bill requires a third of the units in this development must be 
public housing units, with limited exceptions. Public housing agencies 
can build additional units on the site provided the provision of these 
units does not violate fair housing laws and the number of additional 
units is determined in consultation with residents, community leaders, 
and local government officials. Remaining units must be built in 
the jurisdiction of the public housing agency in low poverty areas and 
in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing.

  The bill provides displaced residents with three housing choices: (a) 
a revitalized unit on the site of the original public housing location; 
(b) a revitalized unit in the jurisdiction of the public housing 
agency; or (c) a housing choice voucher, which can be used in areas 
with lower concentrations of poverty. Public housing residents of the 
revitalized developments must, under the provisions of this bill, be 
subject to the same screening criteria used for all public housing 
units.
  This legislation also mandates adequate oversight, requiring public 
housing agencies to monitor and track all households affected by the 
HOPE VI revitalization plan. In addition, public housing agencies must 
develop a temporary relocation plan that provides comparable housing 
for all relocated residents, protects residents in transitioning to the 
private rental market with housing choice vouchers, provides for 
housing opportunities in 7 neighborhoods with lower concentrations of 
poverty, and extends the voucher search time to 150 days.
  Madam Chairman, this legislation also provides for the active 
involvement and participation of residents in the grant planning 
process, including public hearings and four notices to residents on (a) 
the intent to apply for a HOPE VI grant, (b) grant award and relocation 
options, (c) grant agreement and relocation options, and (d) 
replacement housing.
  The bill includes several provisions designed to increase the rate at 
which HOPE VI developments are constructed, which will help reduce the 
time tenants are relocated. The bill requires all new housing to be 
rebuilt within 12 months from the allocation of low-income housing tax 
credits or, for those grants that do not use tax credits, within 12 
months of demolition or disposition. The bill waives the grant matching 
requirement for HOPE VI applicants in areas recovering from natural 
disasters or emergencies. This further helps these communities recover 
quickly and efficiently. Grantees that do not meet performance 
benchmarks will be penalized.
  Finally, I would like to draw attention to requirements in this 
legislation mandating that all replacement housing and other structures 
part of the HOPE VI development to comply with certain energy-efficient 
green building standards. This Congress has made protecting the 
environment a priority, and I am pleased to see this provision included 
in today's legislation.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this extremely 
important legislation.
  Mr. TERRY. Madam Chairman, I rise to express my opposition to H.R. 
3524, the HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2007.
  After speaking with the Omaha Housing Authority in my District, I 
have been informed that the changes in the bill are overly prescriptive 
and potentially burdensome for the community of Omaha.
  In particular the one-for-one replacement of public housing units 
that is required under this bill is simply not feasible. This 
legislation requires one-for-one replacement of units that are 
demolished under the proposed plan on the original site or within the 
jurisdiction of the public housing authority. H.R. 3524 also mandates 
that one-third of the units that are constructed as a part of the 
mixed-income community revitalization plan remain public housing units.
  One particular area where the Omaha Housing Authority would like to 
apply a HOPE IV grant to is the Pleasant View area. I am told that 
there are 190 units in Pleasant View that are in need of demolition, 
however, with the overly burdensome regulation of the one-to-one 
replacement requirement prescribed in this bill, the OHA would not be 
able to feasibly perform this demolition. These units are currently not 
occupied, so with the inclusion of Mr. Neugebauer's amendment we would 
at least have some relief in this area.
  I commend my colleague, Randy Neugebauer, for his amendment that 
would apply the one-to-one replacement requirement for units demolished 
under this program only to units that are occupied prior to demolition.
  Another very problematic change for the Housing Authority in Omaha 
included in this legislation would be the compliance with the Green 
Communities rating system. As you know, this legislation requires the 
proposed revitalization plan to comply with the mandatory and non-
mandatory items of the National Green Community checklist for 
residential construction and the mandatory and non-mandatory components 
of version 2.2 of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 
(LEED) green building system for New Construction and Major 
Renovations.
  The mandatory green building requirements for Green Communities and 
the U.S. Green Building Council's (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and 
Environmental Design (LEED) will drive up development costs and 
threaten the viability of this important housing program in Omaha 
reducing the actual number of units that can be built.
  Because of the vital importance of protecting housing affordability 
and keeping green building flexible, functional and effective, I will 
be voting against this bill as is and urge a ``no'' vote to my 
colleagues.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered 
read.
  The text of the committee amendment is as follows:

                               H.R. 3524

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``HOPE VI 
     Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2007''.
       (b) References.--Except as otherwise expressly provided in 
     this Act, wherever in this Act an amendment or repeal is 
     expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a 
     section or other provision, the reference shall be considered 
     to be made to a section or other provision of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.).
       (c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; references; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purposes of program.
Sec. 3. Authority to waive contribution requirement in cases of extreme 
              distress or emergency.
Sec. 4. Prohibition of demolition-only grants.
Sec. 5. Repeal of main street projects grant authority.
Sec. 6. Eligible activities.
Sec. 7. Selection of proposals for grants.
Sec. 8. Requirements for mandatory core components.
Sec. 9. Planning and technical assistance grants.
Sec. 10. Annual report; availability of documents.
Sec. 11. Definitions.
Sec. 12. Conforming amendment.
Sec. 13. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 14. Extension of program.
Sec. 15. Review.
Sec. 16. Regulations.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES OF PROGRAM.

       Subsection (a) of section 24 of the United States Housing 
     Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437v(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before ``through'' the 
     following: ``located in communities of all sizes, including 
     small- and medium-sized communities,'';
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by inserting ``low- and'' before ``very low-income''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) promoting housing choice among low- and very low-
     income families.''.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORITY TO WAIVE CONTRIBUTION REQUIREMENT IN CASES 
                   OF EXTREME DISTRESS OR EMERGENCY.

       Subsection (c) of section 24 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Waiver.--
       ``(A) Authority.--The Secretary may waive the applicability 
     of paragraph (1) with respect to an applicant or grantee if 
     the Secretary determines that circumstances of extreme 
     distress or emergency, in the area that the revitalization 
     plan of the applicant is to be carried out, directly affect 
     the ability of the applicant or grantee to comply with such 
     requirement.
       ``(B) Regulations.--The Secretary shall issue regulations 
     to carry out this paragraph, which shall--
       ``(i) set forth such circumstances of extreme distress and 
     emergency; and
       ``(ii) provide that such circumstances shall include any 
     instance in which the area in which a revitalization plan 
     assisted with amounts from a grant under this section is to 
     be carried out is subject to a declaration by the President 
     of a major disaster or emergency under the Robert T.

[[Page H313]]

     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.''.

     SEC. 4. PROHIBITION OF DEMOLITION-ONLY GRANTS.

       Section 24 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(3), by striking ``or demolition of 
     public housing (without replacement)'';
       (2) in the first sentence of subsection (e)(3)--
       (A) by striking ``demolition only,''; and
       (B) by striking the last comma; and
       (3) in subsection (e), by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(4) Prohibition of demolition-only grants.--The Secretary 
     may not make a grant under this section for a revitalization 
     plan that proposes to demolish public housing without 
     revitalization of any existing public housing dwelling 
     units.''.

     SEC. 5. REPEAL OF MAIN STREET PROJECTS GRANT AUTHORITY.

       Section 24 is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (n) (relating to grants for 
     assisting affordable housing developed through main street 
     projects in smaller communities);
       (2) in subsection (a), by striking the last sentence (that 
     appears after and below paragraph (5), as added by section 
     2(4) of this Act);
       (3) in subsection (l)--
       (A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``, including a 
     specification of the amount and type of assistance provided 
     under subsection (n);'' and inserting ``; and''; and
       (B) by striking paragraph (4); and
       (4) in subsection (m), by striking paragraph (3).

     SEC. 6. ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES.

       Paragraph (1) of section 24(d) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``programs'' and inserting ``plans'';
       (2) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``program'' and 
     inserting ``plan'';
       (3) by striking subparagraph (J) and inserting the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(J) the acquisition and development of replacement 
     housing units in accordance with subsection (j);''.
       (4) in subparagraph (K), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (5) in subparagraph (L)--
       (A) by striking ``15 percent'' and inserting ``25 
     percent''; and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting a 
     semicolon; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(M) necessary costs of ensuring the effective relocation 
     of residents displaced as a result of the revitalization of 
     the project, including costs of monitoring as required under 
     subsection (k); and
       ``(N) activities undertaken to comply with the provisions 
     of (B)(vii) and (C)(xiii) of subsection (e)(2) and subsection 
     (l) (relating to green developments).''.

     SEC. 7. SELECTION OF PROPOSALS FOR GRANTS.

       (a) Selection Criteria.--Section 24(e) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) Grant award criteria.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish 
     criteria for the award of grants under this section.
       ``(B) Mandatory core components.--The criteria under this 
     paragraph shall require that a proposed revitalization plan 
     may not be selected for award of a grant under this section 
     unless the proposed plan meets all of the following 
     requirements:
       ``(i) Evidence of severe distress.--The proposed plan shall 
     contain evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the public 
     housing project that is subject to the plan is severely 
     distressed, which shall include--

       ``(I) a certification signed by an engineer or architect 
     licensed by a State licensing board that the project meets 
     the criteria for physical distress under subsection (t)(2); 
     and
       ``(II) such other evidence that the project meets criteria 
     for nonphysical distress under subsection (t)(2), such as 
     census data, crime statistics, and past surveys of 
     neighborhood stability conducted by the public housing 
     agency.

       ``(ii) Resident involvement and services.--The proposed 
     plan shall provide for opportunities for involvement of 
     residents of the housing subject to the plan and the 
     provision of services for such residents, in accordance with 
     subsection (g).
       ``(iii) Relocation plan.--The proposed plan shall provide a 
     plan for relocation of households occupying the public 
     housing project that is subject to the plan, in accordance 
     with subsection (h), including a statement of the estimated 
     number of vouchers for rental assistance under section 8 that 
     will be needed for such relocation.
       ``(iv) Resident right to expanded housing opportunities.--
     The proposed plan provides right of resident households to 
     occupy housing provided under such revitalization plan in 
     accordance with subsection (i).
       ``(v) One-for-one replacement.--The proposed plan shall 
     provide a plan that--

       ``(I) provides for replacement in accordance with 
     subsection (j) of 100 percent of all dwelling units 
     demolished or disposed of under such revitalization plan, as 
     of the date of the application for the grant, on the site of 
     the original public housing or within the jurisdiction of the 
     public housing agency;
       ``(II) identifies the type of replacement housing that will 
     be offered to tenants displaced by the revitalization plan;
       ``(III) contains such agreements with or assurances by the 
     Secretary, State and local governmental agencies, and other 
     entities sufficient to ensure compliance with subsection (j) 
     and the requirements of section 18 applicable pursuant to 
     subsection (p)(1); and
       ``(IV) contains such assurances or agreements as the 
     Secretary considers necessary to ensure compliance with 
     subsection (i)(2).

       ``(vi) Fair housing; limitation on exclusion.--The proposed 
     plan shall be carried out in a manner that complies with 
     section (m) (relating to affirmatively furthering fair 
     housing and limitation on exclusion).
       ``(vii) Green developments.--The proposed plan complies 
     with the requirement under subsection (l) (relating to green 
     developments).
       ``(C) Mandatory graded components.--The criteria under this 
     paragraph shall provide that, in addition to the requirements 
     under subparagraph (B), the proposed revitalization plan 
     shall address and meet minimum requirements with respect to, 
     and shall provide additional priority based on the extent to 
     which the plan satisfactorily addresses, each of the 
     following issues:
       ``(i) Compliance with purposes.--The extent to which the 
     proposed plan of an applicant achieves the purposes of this 
     section set forth in subsection (a).
       ``(ii) Capability and record.--The extent of the capability 
     and record of the applicant public housing agency, public 
     partners, proposed private development partners, or any 
     alternative management entity for the agency, for managing 
     redevelopment or modernization projects, meeting performance 
     benchmarks, and obligating amounts in a timely manner, 
     including any past performance of such entities under the 
     HOPE VI program and any record of such entities of working 
     with socially and economically disadvantaged businesses, as 
     such term is defined in section 8(a)(4) of the Small Business 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)(4)).
       ``(iii) Diversity outreach.--The extent to which the 
     proposed revitalization plan includes partnerships with 
     socially and economically disadvantaged businesses, as such 
     term is defined by section 8(a)(4) of the Small Business Act.
       ``(iv) Effectiveness of relocation and one-for-one 
     replacement plans.--The extent of the likely effectiveness of 
     the proposed revitalization plan for temporary and permanent 
     relocation of existing residents, including the likely 
     effectiveness of the relocation plan under subparagraph 
     (B)(iii) and the one-for-one replacement plan under 
     subparagraph (B)(v).
       ``(v) Achievability of revitalization plan.--The 
     achievability of the proposed revitalization plan pursuant to 
     subsection (o), with respect to the scope and scale of the 
     project.
       ``(vi) Leveraging.--The extent to which the proposed 
     revitalization plan will leverage other public or private 
     funds or assets for the project.
       ``(vii) Need for additional funding.--The extent to which 
     the applicant could undertake the activities proposed in the 
     revitalization plan without a grant under this section.
       ``(viii) Public and private involvement.--The extent of 
     involvement of State and local governments, private service 
     providers, financing entities, and developers, in the 
     development and ongoing implementation of the revitalization 
     plan.
       ``(ix) Need for affordable housing.--The extent of need for 
     affordable housing in the community in which the proposed 
     revitalization plan is to be carried out.
       ``(x) Affordable housing supply.--The extent of the supply 
     of other housing available and affordable to families 
     receiving tenant-based assistance under section 8.
       ``(xi) Project-based housing.--The extent to which the 
     proposed revitalization plan sustains or creates more 
     project-based housing units available to persons eligible for 
     residency in public housing in markets where the proposed 
     plan shows there is demand for the maintenance or creation of 
     such units.
       ``(xii) Green developments compliance.--The extent to which 
     the proposed revitalization plan--

       ``(I) in the case of residential construction, complies 
     with the nonmandatory items of the national Green Communities 
     criteria checklist identified in subsection (l)(1)(A), or any 
     substantially equivalent standard as determined by the 
     Secretary, but only to the extent such compliance exceeds the 
     compliance necessary to accumulate the number of points 
     required under such subsection; and
       ``(II) in the case of non-residential construction, 
     includes non-mandatory components of version 2.2 of the 
     Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) green 
     building rating system for New Construction and Major 
     Renovations, version 2.0 of the LEED for Core and Shell 
     rating system, or version 2.0 of the LEED for Commercial 
     Interiors rating system, as applicable, or any substantially 
     equivalent standard as determined by the Secretary, but only 
     to the extent such inclusion exceeds the inclusion necessary 
     to accumulate the number of points required under such 
     system.

       ``(xiii) Hard-to-house families.--The extent to which the 
     one-for-one replacement plan under subparagraph (B)(v) for 
     the revitalization plan provides replacement housing that is 
     likely to be most appropriate and beneficial for families 
     whose housing needs are difficult to fulfill, including 
     individuals who are not ineligible for occupancy in public 
     housing pursuant to subsection (m)(2), have been released 
     from a State or Federal correctional facility, have not been 
     arrested for or charged with any crime during the period 
     beginning upon probation or parole and ending one year after 
     completion of probation or parole, and for whom affordable 
     housing is a critical need.
       ``(xiv) Family-friendly housing.--The extent to which 
     replacement housing units provided through the revitalization 
     plan contain a sufficient number of bedrooms to prevent 
     overcrowding.
       ``(xv) Additional on-site mixed-income housing.--The extent 
     to which the one-for-one replacement plan under subparagraph 
     (B)(v) provides public housing units in addition to the 
     number necessary to minimally comply with the requirement 
     under subsection (j)(2)(A)(i), including the extent to which 
     such plan provides

[[Page H314]]

     sufficient housing for elderly and disabled residents who 
     indicate a preference to return to housing provided on the 
     site of the original public housing involved in the 
     revitalization plan and complies with the requirements of 
     subsection (j)(2)(A)(ii).
       ``(xvi) Other.--Such other factors as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate.''.
       (b) Treatment of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Allocations; 
     Mandatory Site Visits.--Section 24(e), as amended by the 
     preceding provisions of this Act, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(5) Treatment of low-income housing tax credit 
     allocation.--In the case of any application for a grant under 
     this section that relies on the allocation of any low-income 
     housing tax credit provided pursuant to section 42 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as part of the revitalization 
     plan proposed in the application, the Secretary shall not 
     require that the first phase of any project to be developed 
     under the plan possess an allocation of such low-income 
     housing tax credits at the time of such application.
       ``(6) Mandatory site visits.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary shall provide for appropriate 
     officers or employees of the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development to conduct a visit to the site of the public 
     housing involved in the revitalization plan proposed under 
     each application for a grant under this section that is 
     involved in a final selection of applications to be funded 
     under this section. Site visits pursuant to this paragraph 
     shall be used only for the purpose of obtaining information 
     to assist in determining whether the public housing projects 
     involved in the application are severely distressed public 
     housing.''.

     SEC. 8. REQUIREMENTS FOR MANDATORY CORE COMPONENTS.

       Section 24 is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (h) through (m) as 
     subsections (q) through (v), respectively;
       (2) by redesignating subsection (o) as subsection (w); and
       (3) by striking subsection (g) and inserting the following 
     new subsections:
       ``(g) Resident Involvement and Services.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each revitalization plan assisted under 
     this section shall provide opportunities for the active 
     involvement and participation of, and consultation with, 
     residents of the public housing that is subject to the 
     revitalization plan during the planning process for the 
     revitalization plan, including prior to submission of the 
     application, and during all phases of the planning and 
     implementation. Such opportunities for participation may 
     include participation of members of any resident council, but 
     may not be limited to such members, and shall include all 
     segments of the population of residents of the public housing 
     that is subject to the revitalization plan, including single 
     parent-headed households, the elderly, young employed and 
     unemployed adults, teenage youth, and disabled persons. Such 
     opportunities shall include a process that provides 
     opportunity for comment on specific proposals for 
     redevelopment, any demolition and disposition involved, and 
     any proposed significant amendments or changes to the 
     revitalization plan.
       ``(2) Notices.--In carrying out a revitalization plan 
     assisted under this section, a public housing agency shall 
     provide the following written notices, in plain and 
     nontechnical language, to each household occupying a dwelling 
     unit in the public housing that is subject to, or to be 
     subject to, the plan:
       ``(A) Notice of intent.--Not later than the expiration of 
     the 30-day period beginning upon publication by the Secretary 
     of a notice of funding availability for a grant under this 
     section for such plan, notice of--
       ``(i) the public housing agency's intent to submit such 
     application;
       ``(ii) the proposed implementation and management of the 
     revitalized site;
       ``(iii) residents' rights under this section to participate 
     in the planning process for the plan, including opportunities 
     for participation in accordance with paragraph (1), and to 
     receive comprehensive relocation assistance and community and 
     supportive services pursuant to paragraph (4); and
       ``(iv) the public hearing pursuant to paragraph (3).
       ``(B) Notice of grant award and relocation options.--Not 
     later than 30 days after notice to the public housing agency 
     of the award of a grant under this section, notice that--
       ``(i) such grant has been awarded;
       ``(ii) describes the process involved under the 
     revitalization plan to temporarily relocate residents of the 
     public housing that is subject to the plan;
       ``(iii) provides the information required pursuant to 
     subsection (h)(2) (relating to relocation options); and
       ``(iv) informs residents of opportunities for participation 
     in accordance with paragraph (1).
       ``(C) Notice of grant agreement and relocation options.--
     Not later than 30 days after execution of a grant agreement 
     under this section with a public housing agency, notice 
     that--
       ``(i) specifically identifies the housing available for 
     relocation of resident of the public housing subject to the 
     revitalization plan;
       ``(ii) sets forth the schedule for relocation of residents 
     of the public housing subject to the revitalization plan, 
     including the dates on which such housing will be available 
     for such relocation; and
       ``(iii) informs residents of opportunities for 
     participation in accordance with paragraph (1).
       ``(D) Notice of replacement housing.--Upon the availability 
     of replacement housing provided pursuant to subsection (j), 
     notice to each household described in subsection (i)(1) of--
       ``(i) such availability;
       ``(ii) the process and procedure for exercising the right 
     to expanded housing opportunities and preferences under 
     subsection (i)(2); and
       ``(iii) opportunities for participation in accordance with 
     paragraph (1) of this subsection.
       ``(E) Other.--Such other notices as the Secretary may 
     require.
       ``(3) Public hearing.--The Secretary may not make a grant 
     under this section to an applicant unless the applicant has 
     convened and conducted a public hearing regarding the 
     revitalization plan, including the one-for-one replacement to 
     occur under the plan, not later than 75 days before 
     submission of the application for the grant under this 
     section for such plan, at a time and location that is 
     convenient for residents of the public housing subject to the 
     plan.
       ``(4) Services.--Each recipient of a grant under this 
     section shall--
       ``(A) provide each household who is residing at the site of 
     the revitalization as of the date of the notice of intent 
     under subparagraph (A) with comprehensive relocation 
     assistance for a period that is the latter of the two periods 
     referred to in subparagraph (B) with comprehensive relocation 
     assistance; and
       ``(B) offer, to each such displaced resident and each low-
     income family provided housing under the revitalization plan, 
     community and supportive services until the latter of--
       ``(i) the expiration of the two-year period that begins 
     upon the end of the development period under the plan; and
       ``(ii) the date on which all funding under the grant for 
     community and supportive services has been expended.
       ``(h) Relocation Program.--Each recipient of a grant under 
     this section shall--
       ``(1) provide for each household displaced by the 
     revitalization plan for which the grant is made to be 
     relocated to a comparable replacement dwelling, as defined in 
     section 101 of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 
     Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), 
     and for payment of actual and reasonable relocation expenses 
     of each such household and any replacement housing payments 
     as are required by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 
     Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970;
       ``(2) fully inform such households of all relocation 
     options, which may include relocating to housing in a 
     neighborhood with a lower concentration of poverty than their 
     current residence or remaining in the housing to which they 
     relocate;
       ``(3) to the maximum extent possible, minimize academic 
     disruptions on affected children enrolled in school by 
     coordinating relocation with school calendars;
       ``(4) establish strategies and plans that assist such 
     displaced residents in utilizing tenant-based vouchers to 
     select housing opportunities, including in communities with a 
     lower concentration of poverty, that--
       ``(A) will not result in a financial burden to the family; 
     and
       ``(B) will promote long-term housing stability;
       ``(5) establish and comply with relocation benchmarks that 
     ensure successful relocation in terms of timeliness; and
       ``(6) notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the 
     case of any tenant-based assistance made available for 
     relocation of a household under this subsection, provide that 
     the term during which the household may lease a dwelling unit 
     using such assistance shall not be shorter than 150 days; if 
     the household is unable to lease a dwelling unit during such 
     period, the public housing agency shall either extend the 
     period during which the household may lease a dwelling unit 
     using such assistance or provide the tenant with the next 
     available dwelling unit owned by the public housing agency.
       ``(i) Right to Expanded Housing Opportunities for Resident 
     Households.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject only to paragraph (3), each 
     revitalization plan assisted with a grant under this section 
     shall make available, to each household occupying a dwelling 
     unit in the public housing subject to a revitalization plan 
     that is displaced as a result of the revitalization plan 
     (including any demolition or disposition of the unit), 
     occupancy for such household in a replacement dwelling unit 
     provided pursuant to subsection (j). To exercise such right 
     under this paragraph to occupancy in such a replacement 
     dwelling unit, the household shall respond in writing to the 
     notice provided pursuant to subsection (g)(2)(C) by the 
     public housing agency.
       ``(2) Preferences.--Such a replacement dwelling unit shall 
     be made available to each household displaced as a result of 
     the revitalization plan before any replacement dwelling unit 
     is made available to any other eligible household.
       ``(3) Reports to secretary.--The Secretary shall require 
     each public housing agency carrying out a revitalization plan 
     assisted under this section to submit to the Secretary such 
     reports as may be necessary to allow the Secretary to 
     determine the extent to which the public housing agency has 
     complied with this subsection and to which displaced 
     residents occupy replacement housing provided pursuant to 
     subsection (j), which shall include information describing 
     the location of replacement housing provided pursuant to 
     subsection (j) and statistical information on the 
     characteristics of all households occupying such replacement 
     housing.
       ``(j) One-for-One Replacement.--Each revitalization plan 
     assisted with a grant under this section under which any 
     public housing dwelling unit is demolished or disposed of 
     shall provide as follows:
       ``(1) Number.--For one hundred percent of all such dwelling 
     units in existence as of the date of the application for the 
     grant that are demolished or disposed under the 
     revitalization plan, the public housing agency carrying out 
     the plan shall provide an additional dwelling unit.

[[Page H315]]

       ``(2) Location.--Such dwelling units shall be provided in 
     the following manner:
       ``(A) On-site mixed-income housing.--
       ``(i) One-third requirement.--A mixed-income housing 
     development shall be provided on the site of the original 
     public housing involved in the revitalization plan in which, 
     except as provided in clause (iii), at least one-third of all 
     dwelling units shall be public housing dwelling units and 
     shall be provided through the development of additional 
     public housing dwelling units.
       ``(ii) Requirements for additional on-site units.--If the 
     mixed-income housing development provided pursuant to clause 
     (i) includes more public housing dwelling units at the site 
     of the original public housing than is minimally necessary to 
     comply with such clause, the public housing agency shall 
     consult with residents, community leaders, and local 
     government officials regarding such additional public housing 
     dwelling units and shall ensure that such units are provided 
     in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing.
       ``(iii) Exception.--If, upon a showing by a public housing 
     agency, the Secretary determines that it is infeasible to 
     locate replacement dwelling units on the site of the original 
     public housing involved in the revitalization plan in 
     accordance with clause (i), all replacement units shall be 
     located in areas within the jurisdiction of the public 
     housing agency having low concentrations of poverty, except 
     that at least one mixed-income housing development shall be 
     provided in such an area within the jurisdiction of the 
     public housing agency and that one-third of all units in such 
     development shall be public housing dwelling units. The 
     Secretary may make a finding of infeasibility under this 
     clause only if--

       ``(I) such location on-site would result in the violation 
     of a consent decree; or
       ``(II) the land on which the public housing is located is 
     environmentally unsafe, geologically unstable, or otherwise 
     unsuitable for the construction of housing, as evidenced by 
     an independent environmental review or assessment.

       ``(iv) Deconcentration of poverty.--All dwelling units 
     provided pursuant to this subparagraph shall be provided in a 
     manner that results in decreased concentrations of poverty, 
     with respect to such concentrations existing on the date of 
     the application for the grant under this section.
       ``(B) Off-site mixed-income housing.--Any other replacement 
     housing units provided in addition to the dwelling units 
     provided pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be provided, in 
     areas within the jurisdiction of the public housing agency 
     having low concentrations of poverty, through--
       ``(i) the acquisition or development of additional public 
     housing dwelling units; or
       ``(ii) the acquisition, development, or contracting 
     (including through project-based assistance) of additional 
     dwelling units that are subject to requirements regarding 
     eligibility for occupancy, tenant contribution toward rent, 
     and long-term affordability restrictions which are comparable 
     to public housing units, except that subparagraphs (B) and 
     (D) of section 8(o)(13) of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(13); relating to percentage 
     limitation and income-mixing requirement for project-based 
     assistance) shall not apply with respect to vouchers used to 
     comply with the requirements of this clause.
       ``(3) Timing.--All replacement dwelling units provided 
     pursuant to this subsection shall be provided not later than 
     the expiration of the 12-month period beginning upon the 
     demolition or disposition of the public housing dwelling 
     units, except that replacement dwelling units financed with a 
     low-income housing tax credit under section 42 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in connection with the 
     revitalization plan shall be provided not later than the 
     expiration of the 12-month period beginning upon the 
     allocation of such low-income housing tax credit. To the 
     greatest extent practicable, such replacement or additional 
     dwelling units, or redevelopment, shall be accomplished in 
     phases over time and, in each such phase, the public housing 
     dwelling units and the dwelling units described in 
     subparagraph (B)(ii) of paragraph (2) shall be made available 
     for occupancy before any nonassisted dwelling unit is made 
     available for occupancy.
       ``(4) Fair housing.--The demolition or disposition, 
     relocation, and provision of replacement housing units under 
     paragraph (2)(B) shall be carried out in a manner that 
     affirmatively furthers fair housing, as described in 
     subsection (e) of section 808 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 3608(e)).
       ``(k) Monitoring of Displaced Households.--
       ``(1) PHA responsibilities.--To facilitate compliance with 
     the requirement under subsection (i) (relating to right to 
     expanded housing opportunities), the Secretary shall, by 
     regulation, require each public housing agency that receives 
     a grant under this section, during the period of the 
     revitalization plan assisted with the grant and until all 
     funding under the grant has been expended--
       ``(A) to maintain a current address of residence and 
     contact information for each household affected by the 
     revitalization plan who was occupying a dwelling unit in the 
     housing that is subject to the plan; and
       ``(B) to provide such updated information to the Secretary 
     on at least a quarterly basis.
       ``(2) Certification.--The Secretary may not close out any 
     grant made under this section to a public housing agency 
     before the agency has certified to the Secretary that the 
     agency has complied with subsection (i) (relating to a right 
     to expanded housing opportunities for resident households) 
     with respect to each resident displaced as a result of the 
     revitalization plan, including providing occupancy in a 
     replacement dwelling unit for each household who requested 
     such a unit in accordance with such subsection.
       ``(3) Reports by secretary.--Not less frequently than once 
     every six months, the Secretary shall submit a report to the 
     Congress that includes all information submitted to the 
     Secretary pursuant to paragraph (1) by all public housing 
     agencies and summarizes the extent of compliance by public 
     housing agencies with the requirements under this subsection 
     and subsection (i).
       ``(l) Green Developments Requirement.--
       ``(1) Requirement.--The Secretary may not make a grant 
     under this section to an applicant unless the proposed 
     revitalization plan of the applicant to be carried out with 
     such grant amounts meets the following requirements, as 
     applicable:
       ``(A) Green communities criteria checklist.--All 
     residential construction under the proposed plan complies 
     with the national Green Communities criteria checklist for 
     residential construction that provides criteria for the 
     design, development, and operation of affordable housing, as 
     such checklist is in effect for purposes of this subsection 
     pursuant to paragraph (3) at the date of the application for 
     the grant, or any substantially equivalent standard as 
     determined by the Secretary, as follows:
       ``(i) The proposed plan shall comply with all items of the 
     national Green Communities criteria checklist for residential 
     construction that are identified as mandatory.
       ``(ii) The proposed plan shall comply with such other 
     nonmandatory items of such national Green Communities 
     criteria checklist so as to result in a cumulative number of 
     points attributable to such nonmandatory items under such 
     checklist of not less than--

       ``(I) 25 points, in the case of any proposed plan (or 
     portion thereof) consisting of new construction; and
       ``(II) 20 points, in the case of any proposed plan (or 
     portion thereof) consisting of rehabilitation.

       ``(B) LEED ratings system.--All non-residential 
     construction under the proposed plan complies with version 
     2.2 of the LEED for New Construction rating system, version 
     2.0 of the LEED for Core and Shell rating system, version 2.0 
     of the LEED for Commercial Interiors rating system, as such 
     systems are in effect for purposes of this subsection 
     pursuant to paragraph (3) at the time of the application for 
     the grant, at least to the minimum extent necessary to be 
     certified to the Silver Level under such system, or any 
     substantially equivalent standard as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(2) Verification.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall verify, or provide 
     for verification, sufficient to ensure that each proposed 
     revitalization plan carried out with amounts from a grant 
     under this section complies with the requirements under 
     paragraph (1) and that the revitalization plan is carried out 
     in accordance with such requirements and plan.
       ``(B) Timing.--In providing for such verification, the 
     Secretary shall establish procedures to ensure such 
     compliance with respect to each grantee, and shall report to 
     the Congress with respect to the compliance of each grantee, 
     at each of the following times:
       ``(i) Not later than 60 days after execution of the grant 
     agreement under this section for the grantee.
       ``(ii) Upon completion of the revitalization plan of the 
     grantee.
       ``(3) Applicability and updating of standards.--
       ``(A) Applicability.--Except as provided in subparagraph 
     (B), the national Green Communities criteria checklist and 
     LEED rating systems referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B) 
     that are in effect for purposes of this subsection are such 
     checklist and systems as in existence upon the date of the 
     enactment of the HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act 
     of 2007.
       ``(B) Updating.--The Secretary may, by regulation, adopt 
     and apply, for purposes of this section, future amendments 
     and supplements to, and editions of, the national Green 
     Communities criteria checklist, the LEED rating systems, and 
     any standard that the Secretary has determined to be 
     substantially equivalent to such checklist or systems.
       ``(m) Fair Housing; Limitation on Exclusion.--
       ``(1) Fair housing.--Each revitalization plan assisted 
     under this section shall affirmatively further fair housing, 
     as described in subsection (e) of section 808 of the Civil 
     Rights Act of 1968.
       ``(2) Limitation on exclusion.--Except to the extent 
     necessary to comply with the requirements of this section, 
     replacement housing provided pursuant to subsection (j) under 
     a revitalization plan of a public housing agency that is 
     owned or managed, or assisted, by the agency shall be subject 
     to the same policies, practices, standards, and criteria 
     regarding waiting lists, tenant screening (including 
     screening criteria, such as credit checks), and occupancy 
     that apply to other housing owned or managed, or assisted, 
     respectively, by such agency. A household may not be 
     prevented from occupying a replacement dwelling unit provided 
     pursuant to subsection (j), or from being provided a tenant-
     based voucher under the revitalization plan, except to the 
     extent specifically provided by any other provision of 
     Federal law (including subtitle F of title V of the Quality 
     Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 13661 
     et seq.; relating to safety and security in public and 
     assisted housing and ineligibility of drug criminals, illegal 
     drug users, alcohol abusers, and dangerous sex offenders), 
     subtitle D of title VI of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1992), (42 U.S.C. 13611 et seq.; relating 
     to preferences for elderly and disabled residents), and 
     section 16(f) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437n(f); relating to ineligibility of persons 
     convicted of methamphetamine offenses)).

[[Page H316]]

       ``(n) Enforcement.--
       ``(1) Administrative enforcement.--If the Secretary 
     determines on the record after opportunity for an agency 
     hearing, pursuant to a request made by any member of 
     household described in subsection (i)(1) who is adversely 
     affected or aggrieved by a violation of subsection (g), (h), 
     (i), (j), (k), (m), or (o), that such a violation has 
     occurred, the Secretary shall issue an order requiring the 
     public housing agency committing such violation to cease and 
     desist for such violation and to take any affirmative action 
     necessary to correct or remedy the conditions resulting from 
     such violation.
       ``(2) Availability of other remedies.--The remedy under 
     paragraph (1) shall be in addition to all other rights and 
     remedies provided by law.
       ``(o) Performance Benchmarks.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each public housing agency that receives 
     a grant under this section shall, in consultation with the 
     Secretary and residents of the public housing subject to the 
     revitalization plan for which the grant is made that are 
     displaced as a result of the revitalization plan, establish 
     performance benchmarks for each component of their 
     revitalization plan.
       ``(2) Failure to meet benchmarks.--If a public housing 
     agency fails to meet the performance benchmarks established 
     pursuant to paragraph (1), the Secretary shall impose 
     appropriate sanctions, including--
       ``(A) appointment of an alternative administrator for the 
     revitalization plan;
       ``(B) financial penalties;
       ``(C) withdrawal of funding under subsection (j); or
       ``(D) such other sanctions as the Secretary may deem 
     necessary.
       ``(3) Extension of benchmarks.--The Secretary shall extend 
     the period for compliance with performance benchmarks under 
     paragraph (1) for a public housing agency, for such period as 
     the Secretary determines to be necessary, if the failure of 
     the agency to meet such benchmarks is attributable to--
       ``(A) litigation;
       ``(B) obtaining approvals of the Federal Government or a 
     State or local government;
       ``(C) complying with environmental assessment and abatement 
     requirements;
       ``(D) relocating residents;
       ``(E) resident involvement that leads to significant 
     changes to the revitalization plan; or
       ``(F) any other reason established by the Secretary by 
     notice published in the Federal Register.
       ``(4) Authority of secretary.--In determining the amount of 
     each grant under this section and the closeout date for the 
     grant, the Secretary shall take into consideration the scope, 
     scale, and size of the revitalization plan assisted under the 
     grant.
       ``(p) Applicability of Other Laws.--
       ``(1) Section 18.--Any severely distressed public housing 
     demolished or disposed of pursuant to a revitalization plan 
     and any public housing developed in lieu of such severely 
     distressed housing shall be subject to the provisions of 
     section 18. To the extent the provisions of section 18 
     conflict with or are duplicative of the provisions of this 
     section, the provisions of this section solely shall apply.
       ``(2) URA.--The Uniform Relocation and Real Property 
     Acquisition Policies Act of 1974 shall apply to all 
     relocation activities pursuant to a revitalization plan under 
     this section.''.

     SEC. 9. PLANNING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS.

       Subsection (v) of section 24 (42 U.S.C. 1437v(v)), as so 
     redesignated by section 8(1), is amended by striking 
     paragraph (2) and inserting the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Technical assistance grants.--Subject only to 
     approvable requests for grants pursuant to paragraph (1) for 
     any fiscal year, the Secretary shall use not less than two 
     percent for grants in such fiscal year to recipients of 
     grants under this section to assist such recipients in 
     obtaining technical assistance in carrying out revitalization 
     programs.''.

     SEC. 10. ANNUAL REPORT; AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS.

       Subsection (u) of section 24, as so redesignated by section 
     8(1) of this Act, is amended--
       (1) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(4) the extent to which public housing agencies carrying 
     out revitalization plans with grants under this section have 
     complied with the requirements under subsection (i) (relating 
     to right to expanded housing opportunities for resident 
     households); and''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:

     ``To the extent not inconsistent with any other provisions of 
     law, the Secretary shall make publicly available through a 
     World Wide Web site of the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development all documents of, or filed with, the Department 
     relating to the program under this section, including 
     applications, grant agreements, plans, budgets, reports, and 
     amendments to such documents; except that in carrying out 
     this sentence, the Secretary shall take such actions as may 
     be necessary to protect the privacy of any residents and 
     households displaced from public housing as a result of a 
     revitalization plan assisted under this section.''.

     SEC. 11. DEFINITIONS.

       Subsection (s) of section 24, as so redesignated by section 
     8(l) of this Act, is amended--
       (1) in clauses (i) and (iii) of paragraph (1)(C), by 
     striking ``program'' each place such term appears and 
     inserting ``plan'';
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by striking ``Supportive'' and inserting ``Community 
     and supportive'';
       (B) by inserting ``community and'' before ``supportive 
     services'';
       (C) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, and such other services that, linked with 
     affordable housing, will improve the health and residential 
     stability of public housing residents''; and
       (D) by inserting after ``transportation,'' the following: 
     ``employment and vocational counseling, financial counseling, 
     life skills training,'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (6);
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (2), the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) Significant amendment or change.--The term 
     `significant' means, with respect to an amendment or change 
     to a revitalization plan, that the amendment or change--
       ``(A) changes the use of 10 percent or more of the funds 
     provided under the grant made under this section for the plan 
     from use for one activity to use for another;
       ``(B) eliminates an activity that, notwithstanding the 
     change, would otherwise be carried out under the plan; or
       ``(C) changes the scope, location, or beneficiaries of the 
     project carried out under the plan.'';
       (5) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (4); and
       (6) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(2) Comprehensive relocation assistance.--The term 
     `comprehensive relocation assistance' means comprehensive 
     assistance necessary to relocate the members of a household, 
     and includes counseling, including counseling regarding 
     housing options and locations and use of tenant-based 
     assistance, case management services, assistance in locating 
     a suitable residence, site tours, and other assistance.
       ``(3) Development.--The term `development' has the same 
     meaning given such term in the first sentence of paragraph 
     (1) of section 3(c) (42 U.S.C. 1437a).''.

     SEC. 12. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

       Paragraph (1) of section 24(f) is amended by striking 
     ``programs'' and inserting ``plans''.

     SEC. 13. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Subsection (v)(1) of section 24, as so redesignated by 
     section 8(1) of this Act, is amended by striking all that 
     follows ``section'' and inserting ``$800,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2008 through 2015.''.

     SEC. 14. EXTENSION OF PROGRAM.

       Subsection (w) of section 24, (as so redesignated by 
     section 8(2) of this Act) is amended by striking ``September 
     30, 2007'' and inserting ``September 30, 2015''.

     SEC. 15. REVIEW.

       The Comptroller General of the United States shall--
       (1) conduct a review of activities, actions, and methods 
     used in revitalization plans assisted under section 24 of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937 to determine which may be 
     transferable to other federally-assisted housing programs; 
     and
       (2) make recommendations to the Congress regarding the 
     activities, actions, and methods reviewed under paragraph (1) 
     not later than the expiration of the 3-year period beginning 
     on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 16. REGULATIONS.

       Section 24, as amended by the preceding provisions of this 
     Act, is further amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(x) Regulations.--Not later than the expiration of the 
     120-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of the 
     HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2007, the 
     Secretary shall issue regulations to carry out this section, 
     including the amendments made by such Act.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order 
except those printed in House Report 110-509. Each amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report; by a Member designated 
by the report; shall be considered read; shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent of the amendment; shall not be subject to 
amendment; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Waters

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed 
in House Report 110-509.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Ms. Waters:
       Page 9, strike lines 7 through 12, and insert the 
     following:

       ``(I)(aa) provides for replacement in accordance with 
     subsection (j) of 100 percent of all dwelling units in 
     existence as of January 1, 2005, that are subject to the 
     revitalization plan and that have been or will be demolished 
     or disposed of, on the site of''.

       Page 9, line 15, before the semicolon insert the following: 
     ``, or (bb) pursuant to subsection (j)(1)(B), requests a 
     reduction of the percentage specified in subsection (j)(1)(A) 
     and provides for replacement of dwelling units demolished or 
     disposed of in accordance with the percentage requested''.
       Page 9, line 18, strike ``tenants'' and insert 
     ``residents''.
       Page 9, strike ``and'' in line 24 and all that follows 
     through ``(p)(1)'' on page 10, line 2, and insert ``(as 
     modified by any percentage reduction requested under 
     subsection (j)(1)(B))''.
       Page 11, line 9, before the comma insert ``(including 
     nonprofit housing developers)''.

[[Page H317]]

       Page 13, line 4, before the last comma insert ``(including 
     nonprofit housing developers)''.
       Page 14, line 9, after ``standard'' insert ``or 
     standards''.
       Strike line 16 on page 14 and all that follows through page 
     15, line 5, and insert the following: ``construction, 
     complies with the components of the green building rating 
     systems and levels identified by the Secretary pursuant to 
     subsection (l)(3), but only to the extent such compliance 
     exceeds the minimum level required under such systems and 
     levels.''.
       Page 15, line 13, before ``individuals'' insert ``, but not 
     limited to, elderly households, disabled households, 
     households consisting of grandparents raising grandchildren, 
     large families, households displaced by the revitalization 
     plan in need of special services, and''.
       Page 15, line 16, strike ``State or Federal correctional 
     facility'' and insert ``prison, jail, or other correctional 
     facility of the Federal Government, a State government, or a 
     unit of local government''.
       Page 17, after line 21, insert the following:
       (c) Exclusion of Green Development Costs From Total 
     Development Costs.--Subsection (f) of section 24 is amended 
     by adding after and below paragraph (2) the following:
     ``In determining the total development costs for a 
     revitalization plan, the Secretary shall not consider any 
     costs of compliance with green building rating systems and 
     levels identified by the Secretary pursuant to subsection 
     (l)(3).''.
       Page 21, line 6, before ``dates'' insert ``approximate''.
       Page 23, after line 3, insert the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Significant amendments or changes to plan.--A public 
     housing agency may not carry out any significant amendment or 
     change to a revitalization plan unless--
       ``(A) the public housing agency has convened and conducted 
     a public hearing regarding the significant amendment or 
     change at a time and location that is convenient for 
     residents of the public housing subject to the plan and has 
     provided each household occupying a dwelling unit in such 
     public housing with written notice of such hearing not less 
     than 10 days before such hearing; and
       ``(B) after such hearing, the public housing agency 
     consults with the households occupying dwelling units in the 
     public housing that are subject to, or to be subject to the 
     plan, and the agency submits a report to the Secretary 
     describing the results of such consultation; and
       ``(C) the Secretary approves the significant amendment or 
     change.
     Notwithstanding subparagraph (C), if the Secretary does not 
     approve or disapprove a request for a significant amendment 
     or change to a revitalization plan before the expiration of 
     the 30-day period beginning upon the receipt by the Secretary 
     of the report referred to in subparagraph (B), such request 
     shall be considered to have been approved.''.
       Page 24, line 20, strike ``either''.
       Page 24, line 22, strike ``or provide the tenant'' and 
     insert ``and continue to provide the household with 
     comprehensive relocation assistance, or at the option of the 
     household, provide the household''.
       Page 26, strike line 13, and insert the following:
       ``(1) Number.--
       ``(A) In general.--For one hundred percent, or such lower 
     percentage as is provided pursuant to subparagraph (B), of 
     all''.
       Page 26, strike ``the date'' in line 14 and all that 
     follows through line 16 and insert the following: ``January 
     1, 2005, that are subject to the revitalization plan and that 
     have been or will be demolished or disposed of, the public 
     hous-''.
       Page 26, after line 18, insert the following:
       ``(B) Waiver.--
       ``(i) Authority.--Upon the written request of a public 
     housing agency submitted as part of an application for a 
     grant under this section, the Secretary may reduce the 
     percentage applicable under subparagraph (A) to a 
     revitalization plan of the agency to not less than 90 
     percent, but only if--

       ``(I) the Secretary determines that such written request 
     has sufficiently demonstrated a compelling need for such 
     reduction due to extenuating circumstances, which shall 
     include--

       ``(aa) a judgment, consent decree, or other order of a 
     court that limits the ability of the public housing agency to 
     comply with such requirements;
       ``(bb) a severe shortage of land available to comply with 
     such requirements; and
       ``(cc) such other circumstances as the Secretary determines 
     on a case-by-case basis; and

       ``(II) the reduction is narrowly tailored such that it--

       ``(aa) reduces the percentage only to the extent necessary 
     to address the particular extenuating circumstances 
     demonstrated pursuant to subclause (I); and
       ``(bb) is limited in a manner that ensures the maximum 
     extent of compliance with the requirements of this 
     subsection.
       ``(ii) Required and impermissible considerations.--In 
     determining whether a compelling need for a reduction 
     pursuant to this subparagraph exists, and extenuating 
     circumstances exist, for purposes of clause (i), the 
     Secretary--

       ``(I) shall take into consideration the extent and 
     circumstances of any vacant public housing dwelling units of 
     the public housing agency;
       ``(II) shall take into consideration the extent to which 
     revitalization plan provides additional amenities that will 
     improve the quality of the life of residents by increasing 
     open space or by providing health care or day care facilities 
     or by providing larger units to accommodate families; and
       ``(III) shall not base any such determination solely or 
     primarily upon any financial hardship of a public housing 
     agency or any other financial condition or consideration.

       ``(iii) No waiver of time limits.--The Secretary may not, 
     under this subparagraph, waive any requirement of paragraph 
     (3) (relating to timing). The preceding sentence may not be 
     construed to limit or otherwise affect the authority under 
     subsection (o)(3).
       ``(iv) Penalty.--If, pursuant to this subparagraph, the 
     Secretary reduces the percentage under subparagraph (A) 
     applicable to the revitalization plan of a public housing 
     agency, no grant under this section may be made to such 
     agency or for any public housing of such agency at any time 
     that such agency is not in full compliance with the 
     requirements of this paragraph, as modified by the terms of 
     such reduction.''.
       Page 30, after line 2, insert the following:
     ``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if a public housing 
     agency has limited areas within its jurisdiction having low 
     concentrations of poverty, the replacement housing units 
     provided in addition to the dwelling units provided pursuant 
     to subparagraph (A) may be provided within a 25-mile radius 
     of the mixed-income development referred to in subparagraph 
     (A).''.
       Page 30, strike line 3 and all that follows through 
     ``credit.'' in line 13, and insert the following:
       ``(3) Timing.--All replacement dwelling units required 
     pursuant to this subsection with respect to the 
     revitalization plan of a public housing agency shall be 
     provided not later than the expiration of the 54-month period 
     that begins upon the execution of the grant agreement under 
     this section for the revitalization plan of the public 
     housing agency.''.
       Page 31, after line 2, insert the following:
       ``(5) Project-based vouchers.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal 
     years 2009 through 2015 for providing replacement vouchers 
     for project-based rental assistance for the purpose of 
     complying with the one-for-one replacement requirement under 
     this subsection.''.
       Page 33, line 1, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''.
       Page 33, line 3, after ``standard'' insert ``or 
     standards''.
       Strike line 22 on page 33 and all that follows through page 
     34, line 9, and insert the following:
       ``(B) Green buildings certification system.--All non-
     residential construction under the proposed plan complies 
     with all minimum required levels of the green building rating 
     systems and levels identified by the Secretary pursuant to 
     paragraph (3), as such systems and levels are in effect for 
     purposes of this subsection pursuant to paragraph (4) at the 
     time of the application for the grant.''.
       Page 35, after line 5, insert the following:
       ``(3) Identification of green buildings rating systems and 
     levels.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this section, the 
     Secretary shall identify rating systems and levels for green 
     buildings that the Secretary determines to be the most likely 
     to encourage a comprehensive and environmentally-sound 
     approach to ratings and standards for green buildings. The 
     identification of the ratings systems and levels shall be 
     based on the criteria specified in subparagraph (B), shall 
     identify the highest levels the Secretary determines are 
     appropriate above the minimum levels required under the 
     systems selected. Within 90 days of the completion of each 
     study required by subparagraph (C), the Secretary shall 
     review and update the rating systems and levels, or identify 
     alternative systems and levels for purposes of this section, 
     taking into account the conclusions of such study.
       ``(B) Criteria.--In identifying the green rating systems 
     and levels, the Secretary shall take into consideration--
       ``(i) the ability and availability of assessors and 
     auditors to independently verify the criteria and measurement 
     of metrics at the scale necessary to implement this 
     subsection;
       ``(ii) the ability of the applicable ratings system 
     organizations to collect and reflect public comment;
       ``(iii) the ability of the standards to be developed and 
     revised through a consensus-based process;
       ``(iv) an evaluation of the robustness of the criteria for 
     a high-performance green building, which shall give credit 
     for promoting--

       ``(I) efficient and sustainable use of water, energy, and 
     other natural resources;
       ``(II) use of renewable energy sources;
       ``(III) improved indoor environmental quality through 
     enhanced indoor air quality, thermal comfort, acoustics, day 
     lighting, pollutant source control, and use of low-emission 
     materials and building system controls; and
       ``(IV) such other criteria as the Secretary determines to 
     be appropriate; and

       ``(v) national recognition within the building industry.
       ``(C) 5-year evaluation.--At least once every five years, 
     the Secretary shall conduct a study to evaluate and compare 
     available third-party green building rating systems and 
     levels, taking into account the criteria listed in 
     subparagraph (B).''.

[[Page H318]]

       Page 35, line 6, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''.
       Page 35, lines 10 and 11, strike `` LEED rating systems'' 
     and insert ``green building rating systems and levels''.
       Page 35, line 12, after ``(B)'' insert ``of paragraph 
     (1)''.
       Page 35, line 13, strike ``and systems'' and insert ``, 
     systems, and levels''.
       Page 35, strike lines 21 through 24 and insert the 
     following: ``criteria checklist, any standard or standards 
     that the Secretary has determined to be substantially 
     equivalent to such checklist, and the green building ratings 
     systems and levels identified by the Secretary pursuant to 
     paragraph (3).''.
       Page 35, line 25, strike ``Limitation on Exclusion'' and 
     insert ``Consistent Eligibility and Occupancy Standards''.
       Page 36, line 5, strike ``Limitation on exclusion'' and 
     insert ``Consistent eligibility and occupancy standards''.
       Strike ``. A household'' in line 15, on page 36 and all 
     that follows through page 37, line 7, and insert the 
     following: ``, including requirements under Federal law 
     relating to safety and security in public and assisted 
     housing and ineligibility of drug criminals, illegal drug 
     users, alcohol abusers, and dangerous sex offenders, 
     preferences for elderly and disabled residents, and 
     ineligibility of persons convicted of methamphetamine 
     offenses.''.
       Page 37, after line 7, insert the following:
       ``(3) Consistent occupancy standards for displaced 
     families.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2), any household who 
     occupied a dwelling unit in public housing subject to a 
     revitalization plan of a public housing agency and that was 
     displaced as a result of the revitalization shall be subject, 
     for purposes of occupancy in replacement housing provided 
     pursuant to subsection (j) under the replacement plan that is 
     owned or managed, or assisted, by the agency, only to 
     policies, practices, standards, criteria, and requirements 
     regarding continued occupancy in such original public housing 
     (and not to initial occupancy).''.
       Page 38, line 7, after the period insert the following: 
     ``Such benchmarks shall include completion of the provision 
     of all replacement dwelling units provided pursuant to the 
     requirements of subsection (j)''.
       Page 39, after line 5, insert the following:
       ``(D) project delays and cost increases due to shortages in 
     labor and materials as a direct result of location in an area 
     that is subject to a declaration by the President of a major 
     disaster or emergency under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     and Emergency Assistance Act, except that an extension of the 
     period for compliance with performance benchmarks pursuant to 
     this subparagraph shall not be for a period longer than 12 
     months;''.
       Page 39, line 6, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(E)''.
       Page 39, line 7, strike ``(E)'' and insert ``(F)''.
       Page 39, line 9, strike ``(F)'' and insert ``(G)''.
       Strike line 17 on page 39 and all that follows through 
     ``(2) URA.--'' on page 40, line 1, and insert the following:
       ``(p) Applicability of Uniform Relocation Act.--''.
       Page 42, lines 17 and 18, strike ``10 percent or more of 
     the funds'' and insert ``20 percent or more of the total 
     amount of HOPE VI grant amounts provided under this 
     section''.
       Page 44, after line 18, insert the following:

     SEC. 16. EXTENSION OF AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 
                   REVITALIZATION PLANS DELAYED BY HURRICANES.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary 
     of Housing and Urban Development may not, before October 1, 
     2009, recapture any portion of a grant made to a public 
     housing agency to carry out a revitalization plan under 
     section 24 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437v) if the public housing agency has suffered, as a 
     direct result of Hurricane Katrina, Wilma, or Rita of 2005--
       (1) project delays; and
       (2) cost increases due to shortages in labor and materials.
       Page 44, line 19, strike ``SEC. 16.'' and insert ``SEC. 
     17.''.
       Page 45, after line 2, insert the following:

     SEC. 18. NON-CITIZEN ELIGIBILITY RESTRICTIONS.

       No person not lawfully permitted to be in or remain in the 
     United States is eligible for housing assistance under this 
     Act or the amendments made by this Act. Nothing in this Act 
     or the amendments made by this Act alters the rules under 
     section 214 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1436a).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 922, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Financial Services, Barney Frank, and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman 
Mel Watt for their strong support of the manager's amendment to H.R. 
3524.
  In the manager's amendment filed before this committee, we worked 
very hard to address concerns that had been raised by the minority, 
housing advocates, resident organizations, housing authorities, and 
others to ensure that we have a bill that is achievable and responsive 
to the needs of low-income families and communities.
  In the manager's amendment we maintain more of our public housing 
stock by requiring the replacement of any units in existence as of 
January 1, 2005; provide an extremely limited waiver of the one-for-one 
requirement in special circumstances, such as a court decree or a 
severe shortage of land, and impose a penalty on those housing 
authorities who receive a waiver but fail to meet their obligations 
under it; allow replacement units to be built outside the jurisdiction 
of the housing authority in the event the housing authority's 
jurisdiction is limited in the number of low-poverty areas; extend the 
timeline for rebuilding from 12 to 54 months; increase resident 
involvement in decisions surrounding significant changes to HOPE VI 
plans; exclude green building from total development costs; provide 
flexibility in nonresidential green development standards; protect 
grantees affected by cost increases and project delays as a result of 
the 2005 hurricanes from recapture of their funds; and provide that 
HOPE VI housing assistance is only for persons who are legally present 
in the United States.
  These changes will greatly improve the bill and build upon the 
success of the HOPE VI program. Since this program's inception in 1992, 
we have all watched it at work in our districts and wondered how it 
could work better. We have all seen families displaced and heard 
stories about families disappearing into thin air because of these 
developments. We have seen the units come down and seen a reduced 
number come back up. We know that HOPE VI can and must do better.
  This manager's amendment as well as the underlying bill will go far 
into making this a program that truly gives hope to low-income 
families. I urge you to support the manager's amendment and the 
underlying bill and to remember that this bill is about maintaining 
housing for our low-income families. They need our support.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, 
although I am not opposed to the manager's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West Virginia 
is recognized for 10 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to thank the chairman and the chairwoman of the 
subcommittee, Ms. Waters, for reaching across the aisle and working on 
some of the very serious concerns that we had about the original bill.
  I would like to speak specifically about one area, the one-for-one 
replacement. We have heard a lot of discussion about that on the floor 
in the beginning arguments. But in this manager's amendment, there is 
much more flexibility in the one-for-one replacement. It also allows 
the Secretary to have some flexibility, and I think that means we will 
have more meaningful housing, housing with more vision on how to 
improve family and home life.
  Another thing is the development timeline. In the original bill, the 
development timeline was 12 months. I can't imagine myself trying to 
build large projects such as these and have everything in 12 months. So 
that deadline was extended to 54 months, which I think was a very good 
move.
  Also on the green building requirements, I have an amendment coming 
forward to ask for flexibility again in the green building 
requirements. But in the manager's amendment, some revisions were made, 
and I think it's moving us a step in the right direction.
  I myself support the manager's amendment. I think that a lot of the 
changes that were made were made in response to what we were hearing in 
our various offices from not only individuals but various groups their 
concern for the best way to put forward affordable housing, HOPE VI, 
and make sure that what we build stands up to the challenges of the 
future.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman

[[Page H319]]

from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), who spent a lot of time working on this 
manager's amendment and this bill.
  Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, I want to congratulate first Chairman Frank and 
Subcommittee Chairwoman Waters, both from the Financial Services 
Committee, for their great work in bringing forward to the floor this 
reauthorization bill for the important HOPE VI program.
  I am a supporter of the manager's amendment, and I want to say a few 
words from an appropriator's perspective here as the chairman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee that deals with HUD.
  In America, we have at least 10 million American families who live 
below or near the poverty line who are struggling to make ends meet and 
working largely in minimum wage or near minimum wage jobs and part-time 
jobs. We appropriate voucher rental assistance for roughly 2\1/2\ 
million of those families through the tenant and project basis, and 
they're costly. We also appropriate monies to provide operations for 
the roughly 600,000 units which are under our public housing 
authorities all over the country.
  The HOPE VI program is our only program that allows for total 
renovation of replacement of family housing units in that group that 
are under the public housing authorities in cities and towns all over 
the country. All 10 million of those families dream about better jobs 
and owning a home, but with incomes so limited, the family budget gets 
destabilized if there is a job loss or an unanticipated health problem 
in the family, and they end up being the most vulnerable people for 
predatory lending practices that have become so obvious in the mortgage 
disclosure crisis if they are trying to make ends meet and trying to 
have homeownership. Those are exactly the families that would benefit 
the most from reduced monthly energy bills, and they are the most in 
need of that help.
  Under the bill before us, HOPE VI projects must meet energy saving 
requirements embodied in the green community criteria established by 
Enterprise Partners, the American Planning Association, the American 
Institute of Architects, and the Natural Resource Defense Council, 
among others, who have put forth a comprehensive set of criteria which 
include siting of buildings to maximize passive solar heating and 
cooling, siting near public transportation, using Energy Star highly 
efficient appliances, using water fixtures that save water and energy.
  A study of 20 already completed projects using these standards showed 
an average of 2.4 percent only in construction cost increase, but that 
cost is recovered within 5 to 7 years by lower monthly energy bills.

                              {time}  1200

  For the rest of the 50- to 100-year lifetime of the public housing, 
the moneys, those savings go back to the individual families, and it 
requires us to appropriate less money to the public housing authority. 
So it's a very important program.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield my remaining time to 
the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Bachus of Alabama.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's 
amendment, and I would like to commend the majority on addressing 
several of our concerns. I think particularly the developmental 
timeline is very significant. I think it's a much more practical way of 
dealing with notifying tenants about changes, eligibility standards are 
much improved, and the provision on illegal aliens.
  I do think that the one-on-one replacement provision, and I very much 
appreciate you, I think, making a good change, and I think it allows 
more of our Members to support the underlying bill. I do intend to 
continue to support doing away with the one-on-one replacement for the 
reasons I said in earlier debate, because I still believe that for most 
people the best option is for them to move out of this concentrated 
housing. I also think it has an unintended consequence of restricting 
the ability to create a mixed-income community that you attract a mix 
of individuals into.
  So I will support the Neugebauer amendment. I think the green 
building requirement, it does do away with some specific references to 
the LEED rating standard. However, the Green Communities rating system 
for residential construction remains in the bill, and I believe that we 
have got to give more flexibility. Let's be environmentally sound, but 
let's don't adopt one standard, particularly as expressed by the 
Carpenters Union, the Laborers Union, also the National Home Builders. 
Let's not discriminate against American wood products.
  As we continue to move forward, I am sure that the cooperation you 
all have shown today will manifest itself, and we will continue to work 
on that. I will support, and I believe very much we need Mrs. Capito's 
amendments on the green building requirement.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I again appreciate the gentlewoman's 
courtesy, as I appreciate her leadership on this, and that of my 
friend, Mr. Olver.
  There is a difference between flexibility in green building standards 
and gutting the provision altogether. Having green building standards 
should not be merely one factor that is considered, as will be proposed 
by the gentlewoman's amendment later in the game. The manager's 
amendment provides flexibility and allows the Secretary to deal with 
compliance. It does not have strict LEED certification, but still 
retains that environmental green building standard. Frankly, the notion 
that we just dismiss this as merely one factor to be considered is 
going to be regarded in the years to come as an embarrassingly 
shortsighted proposal.
  As I mentioned earlier in the debate we in Portland used HOPE VI to 
create an environmentally-sensitive community that actually provided 
twice as many housing units as had been on the site before, using HOPE 
VI as an anchor for more investment and as a development model. The 
provisions that are in the underlying bill and the manager's amendment 
will provide more environmentally-sensitive construction and, frankly, 
the costs are going to be recovered in relatively short order, as my 
friend from Massachusetts pointed out, in savings, not just from 
energy, but also water and sewer as well.
  These costs are going up exponentially over time. Having this wired 
into the HOPE VI provision means that it is a better investment for the 
community and a better investment for the Federal Government. It's 
going to save the Federal Government and the tenants money over the 
long haul. There is absolutely no reason to water it down.
  I strongly urge approval of the manager's amendment and rejection of 
the subsequent amendment.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank all of the people 
that I have identified on this side of the aisle today, plus people I 
have not identified on the opposite side of the aisle. It has been very 
enjoyable working with Mrs. Capito, I have appreciated the work of Mr. 
Shays, and of course my old friend, Mr. Bachus, even though we disagree 
on some things; and Mr. Neugebauer. We have all come to the conclusion 
certainly that HOPE VI is a valuable program and that all of our 
communities can benefit from it.
  We have a few different views about one-for-one, we have a few 
different views about Davis-Bacon maybe, the destruction of units, and 
the green requirements. But this is one bill that both sides of the 
aisle understand very thoroughly that America is going to benefit. Mr. 
Bachus reminded us, even though I know that he understands, that the 
reason for HOPE VI is to deal with those public housing projects, those 
developments that were in great disrepair, that needed to be replaced, 
that needed to be restored, and not just the physical makeup, not just 
the buildings; but we also understood that what was wrong with our 
public housing developments was lack of services.
  Many of these developments are like little towns, little cities 
without services. We all know and appreciate they need after-school, 
they need health care, they need all kinds of support for families, and 
job development. All of those things we all support, and I would not 
challenge my Members on the opposite side of the aisle on any of those 
issues.

[[Page H320]]

  I would like to thank them for the tremendous cooperation they have 
given, and the staffs have worked so well together to resolve a lot of 
questions to get us to the point that we are today; and while we will 
go through a few amendments, I feel very, very good that this very, 
very big and complicated bill has received such wonderful support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Holden). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Neugebauer

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 110-509.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Neugebauer:
       Page 9, line 4, before the period insert ``for occupied 
     units''.
       Page 9, line 11, after the comma insert ``occupied''.
       Page 26, line 9, before the period insert ``for Occupied 
     Units''.
       Page 26, line 14, strike ``in existence'' and insert 
     ``occupied''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 922, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I believe there is a concept that I strongly support, and one that I 
think a lot of Members of this body support, that when government is 
too prescriptive, then good ideas and innovation get suppressed. This 
is the reason I brought forward this amendment, because in H.R. 3524, 
it requires that all housing units demolished under the HOPE VI grant 
program be replaced on a one-for-one basis. What we know is that this 
is a new provision in the HOPE VI program. One of the things that 
concerns me most about this is in many cases it is not necessarily 
feasible for us to go back on a one-for-one basis, nor may it be a need 
in that particular community.
  Chairman Waters and I had a chance to travel down to New Orleans and 
see some of the activities going on down there, and what we saw is some 
units that were brought back on a one-for-one basis that were vacant, 
were unoccupied, which indicated there may be some resistance to coming 
back to that particular neighborhood.
  What we also know with the HOPE VI program is that this program was 
designed to replace some very terrible housing conditions, an old, 
failed system of putting all of these low-income systems in a very 
concentrated area, and we found out very quickly that that was not a 
successful program. So now with this particular legislation we are 
going to go back and say we didn't learn our lesson the first time; we 
are going to go back with these kinds of concentrations in these 
neighborhoods, which have already shown to fail.
  The other thing that I think needs to be brought out is in some cases 
there may be land constraints that make this not feasible to go back 
for one-for-one. The second piece of it is that housing and 
demographics have changed since a lot of these units have been built.
  What we are learning now is that we can do these mixed-use projects 
where we bring moderate and low-income families together and not 
putting all of these low-income families in one place. We have also 
learned a lot about the density, the environment, where we have open 
spaces for children to play, and we are not forcing them to play in the 
streets.
  So there's a lot of things that we do better now, but we are trying 
to limit using some of those new techniques and new innovations in 
housing by going back to the old model.
  One of the things that I think has been brought out in this debate is 
that this is not a debate about whether HOPE VI is a good program or 
not. I want to be clear about that, that when I stand before this body 
today and say we shouldn't be too prescriptive, I am not talking about 
not funding this HOPE VI program or reauthorizing it. I think we did 
some things that actually did make this better, but being too 
prescriptive begins to deny the ability of communities to sit down and 
decide what is the best footprint to provide good quality housing for 
our low-income residents, and they deserve that. For us to stand up and 
say this body of 435 here and 100 on the other side, that we know more 
about what the housing needs are in these communities around America, I 
think is a little ludicrous.
  We need to empower the local governments and the housing authorities 
to be able to sit down and say, look, we have got these old and 
dilapidated units, people don't want to live in them, some are vacant, 
some are occupied, and some of them probably shouldn't be occupied, but 
for the United States Congress to say we know more about your housing 
needs in your community, I think is poor policy.
  That is the reason I am going to be encouraging my colleagues today 
to vote for the Neugebauer amendment that takes out the provision of 
being too prescriptive, allowing American cities and communities and 
housing authorities to make the right decisions for our low-income 
folks.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I appreciate the cooperative spirit, and 
we should note that the one-for-one replacement will remain in effect, 
but there's a question about what it accomplishes.
  Let me describe the one-for-one replacement, because it is not nearly 
as prescriptive as my friend would have indicated. In the first place, 
communities will have 54 months after the demolition with which to 
replace the housing. Secondly, it does not have to be new public 
housing. We have explicitly added here the ability to do project-based 
vouchers. We have worked with some of those who in fact try to do HOPE 
VI, to make it more flexible.
  Third, there's a waiver in here. One of the factors in the waiver, 
the gentleman from Texas correctly mentioned open spaces, one of the 
desirable things. My colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Capuano, offered 
an amendment that has been incorporated into the manager's amendment 
that would say when you apply for a waiver, your willingness to put in 
more open space would be one of the justifications for a waiver for 
one-for-one. So we do have flexibility.
  On the other hand, I reject the notion that we shouldn't be 
prescriptive here. This is not the Federal Government reaching out and 
telling people what to do. This is a restriction on the expenditure of 
Federal funds for a limited purpose. Here is the problem: we do have a 
shortage of affordable housing units. We do not want to see a Federal 
program contribute to a diminution of that. We allowed flexibility in 
the replacement.
  Here's the problem with the gentleman's amendment: most of the people 
who run housing authorities are decent, hardworking people who have 
taken on a tough job, and we have tried to help them. But there are 
political situations in some community where the people running housing 
authorities are not supportive of this purpose.
  What the gentleman's amendment says is if they leave the units 
vacant, they can then permanently get rid of the units. That is the 
problem. Going forward it gives people an incentive or reward not to 
fill the units. Most housing authorities won't be like that, but there 
is incompetence and there are people who for political reasons say, We 
don't want these people, they are too much of a problem.
  So rewarding housing authorities for leaving units vacant by allowing 
them,

[[Page H321]]

if the people left them vacant may want to have fewer housing units, 
allowing them that is a very bad idea. We should have flexibility, I 
agree with the gentleman. But that is flexibility with the waiver; that 
is flexibility in how you deliver placement. In other words, show why 
you're trying to do it. But to diminish the requirement at the outset 
arbitrarily to reward people for leaving units vacant, to reward the 
incompetence. People say, We have got too many other units here. We're 
going to leave them vacant. Remember, elderly housing is a major 
component. That would be a very grave error.

                              {time}  1215

  We have, I believe, in much of this country a shortage.
  Now, if a community comes forward and says to HUD, You know what, 
there is no population here left anymore, there is nobody who wants to 
live here anymore, those are considerations that can be put into the 
waiver. So we agree there should be flexibility. That is why we have a 
waiver component.
  By the way, in addition to open space, if you show you are going to 
do day care facilities, if you show you are going to do health care 
facilities, that can further justify fewer units. If you say you are 
going to build more large units for large families, yes, you can trade 
in a couple of small units for a large unit. All of those are 
encouraged.
  The only thing we disagree with, because we believe we have built 
flexibility in here, is, as I said, to give people in some cases those 
who are, and it is not the majority by any means, people who are not 
supportive of this, give them an incentive to leave housing vacant.
  Now, let me say this to the gentleman: His amendment didn't say 
housing that was physically unoccupiable. I agree the bill does not 
make that consideration. I would say to the gentleman, going forward, 
we might be able to work on a situation where units that were 
physically not habitable might not be counted. I agree with that. If 
that was the amendment, I think we might be working something out, and 
I hope we will as it goes forward. But what the gentleman's amendment 
says, units that are perfectly in good shape, that the authority either 
can't rent because they are incompetent or decides not to, that those 
can be disregarded.
  So I hope the amendment is defeated. But I would promise to work with 
the gentleman as we go forward so that units that are in fact not 
habitable, not occupiable, would not be counted.
  I would yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the gentleman. I do understand that there 
could be a small minority of housing authorities trying to accomplish 
some purpose by keeping those units vacant, but I would say we are 
being probably more prescriptive for the ones that are vacant.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Taking back my time, I would agree with 
that if we didn't have a waiver in there, if we didn't have a variety 
of ways of meeting the one-for-one replacement. It is not all public 
housing. In fact, one of the things I plan to do in future legislation 
in cooperation with my colleagues is to go to some of the other housing 
programs we may have, maybe the Low Income Housing Fund or others, and 
give a preference to housing authorities who have that HOPE VI 
obligation. So, in other words, there would be a wide variety of ways 
in which they could replace the housing, not simply by public housing, 
because, I agree, that would be self-defeating.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. If the gentleman would yield, I would appreciate 
working with the gentleman on that particular provision of making sure 
that those units that are not habitable now would not be counted.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I appreciate that. I thank the gentleman.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


           Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Mahoney of Florida

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 110-509.
  Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Mahoney of Florida:
       Page 5, strike lines 8 through 23, and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 5. MAIN STREET PROJECTS GRANTS.

       Section 24 is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (n) as subsection (y);
       (2) in subsection (l), by striking ``subsection (n)'' each 
     place such term appears and inserting ``subsection (y)''; and
       (3) in subsection (m)(3), by striking ``subsection (n)'' 
     and inserting ``subsection (y)''.
       Page 40, strike lines 19 and 20 and insert the following:
       (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new 
     paragraph:
       Page 40, line 21, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
       Page 44, line 21, strike ``by adding at the end'' and 
     inserting ``by inserting before subsection (y) (as so 
     redesignated by section 5(1) of this Act)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 922, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Mahoney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an 
amendment that will preserve the HOPE VI Main Street Grant program. 
This program, important to rural communities with very small 
populations, was created with the passage of the American Dream Act of 
2003. Since its inception, the program has helped a small number of 
rural communities develop affordable housing units in conjunction with 
larger revitalization efforts.
  The creation of the HOPE VI Main Street Grant program in 2003 is 
important to rural communities because it allows rural communities to 
compete with larger urban areas for HOPE VI dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, for those not familiar with the program, the HOPE VI 
Main Street grants are funded through a 5 percent set-aside in the HOPE 
VI annual appropriations and each award is capped at $1 million.
  As I noted, this program is extremely important to rural communities 
such as Moore Haven, Florida. Located on the banks of the 
Caloosahatchee River in Glades County and one of the most rural areas 
of Florida, Moore Haven is one of the oldest cities in South Florida. 
This beautiful, old, sleepy Florida town is home to one doctor, Dr. 
Geek, and one restaurant. It is one of the few places left in Florida 
where the families have lived there for generations and everyone knows 
their neighbor.
  Unfortunately, it is also one of the poorest areas in the State. The 
population of the city is approximately 1,900 people and the annual tax 
revenue for all of Glades County is $6 million. The people of Moore 
Haven have a desire to revitalize their historic downtown area, but 
they lack the financial resources.
  Guided by the vision of Tracy Whirls, the Executive Director of the 
Glades County Economic Development Council, Moore Haven applied for a 
HOPE VI Main Street grant last year. The city had hoped to use the 
money to purchase three historic but dilapidated and vacant buildings, 
with the intention of attracting businesses to the first floors and 12 
affordable housing units on the upper levels. Plans for the first 
floors included opening Moore Haven's only pharmacy and furniture 
store.
  I regret, Mr. Chairman, that Moore Haven was not successful in its 
attempt to secure the grant. The good news is that they are game and 
they are going to apply for it again this year. But I believe it is 
imperative that we continue to give Moore Haven and small rural cities 
like Moore Haven across this great Nation this opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would like to leave you with the words of 
Larry Luckey, the Glades County property appraiser. ``If we are unable 
to

[[Page H322]]

save these historic commercial buildings, the downtown historic 
district will cease to exist. I am saddened at the thought that we may 
well become a city with no history.''
  I would ask for the support of my colleagues to preserve the HOPE VI 
Main Street Grant program and the economy and history of small towns 
across America, including Moore Haven. In addition, with the passage of 
my amendment, we will ensure that rural communities continue to have 
access to the affordable housing benefits provided by the HOPE VI 
program.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for 
yielding and thank the chairman and chairwoman for their passion and 
leadership on this very important issue.
  I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my good friend 
and colleague from Florida, Mr. Mahoney. Mr. Chairman, I represent the 
First District of North Carolina, which is the 15th poorest district in 
our country. One of the towns in my district is called Henderson, North 
Carolina. Last year, this town was one of three, one of three towns 
across the country, to receive the HOPE VI Main Street grant that this 
bill attempts to remove.
  As we all know, HOPE VI Main Street grants seek to revitalize and 
rejuvenate older downtown business districts while retaining the area's 
traditional and historic character. The purpose of this program is to 
provide assistance to smaller communities in the development of 
affordable housing and the revitalization and reconfiguration of 
obsolete commercial offices or buildings into sustainable and 
affordable housing.
  Mr. Chairman, towns like Henderson need these grants. We need these 
grants to reinvigorate the communities and to spur outside commercial 
investment. The point is, in closing, that HOPE VI Main Street grants 
are needed for rural America.
  I want to thank Mr. Mahoney for his leadership and passion and thank 
him for bringing forth this amendment.
  Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Sessions

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 110-509.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Sessions:
       Strike line 18 on page 4 and all that follows through page 
     5, line 7.
       Page 16, lines 20 through 22, strike ``, as amended by the 
     preceding provisions of this Act, is further'' and insert 
     ``is''.
       Page 16, line 24, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(4)''.
       Page 17, line 9, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(5)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 992, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, 
which strikes the prohibition of the demolition-only grants from the 
HOPE VI, allowing HUD to retain its current authority to issue these 
grants as conditions warrant. The original goal of HOPE VI was to 
eliminate severely distressed public housing, and demolition-only 
grants continue to play an important role in achieving this goal.
  Currently, HUD is allowed to grant demolition-only grants only when 
necessary and in instances that benefit the community. That means it 
will be done in consultation with the community. As a result, HUD 
provides these grants with great discretion. In fact, a demolition-only 
grant has not been issued by HUD since 2003. Clearly, despite what the 
opponents of this legislation may claim, HUD has not covertly abused 
this power to tear down public housing units without reason and, I 
would suggest to you, without being asked to participate.
  However, sometimes public housing authorities have already put 
together their own financing to redevelop housing, but they lack the 
funds to tear down the existing distressed facility. In instances like 
these, common sense dictates that a demolition-only grant under HOPE VI 
would be appropriate, once again, working with the existing local 
authority to make sure that what they want is accomplished.
  As an added bonus, a cleared site also attracts more Federal and 
private resources for revitalization efforts, meaning that when local 
people ask for the support, then it can and would presumably be 
granted, making the site better.
  Another instance in which demolition-only grants make sense is when a 
severely distressed public housing site is simply not a viable 
candidate for redevelopment, either because it is only partially 
occupied or completely vacant, once again, working directly with the 
local housing authority. In these cases, other forms of housing 
assistance, like section 8 vouchers, may be more beneficial to 
community members simply than reconstructing a new building, in 
particular on the same site, once again, at the discretion of local 
housing authorities.
  The question that every Member should be asking themselves before 
they vote to eliminate this authority is, if there is no demand for 
public housing in a certain area, as evidenced by its partially or 
completely vacant status, and if the local housing authority is seeking 
this help, then why on Earth would Congress mandate that HUD create an 
unwanted supply? It makes no logical or fiscal sense to inefficiently 
direct these taxpayer dollars where there is no reason or demand to 
build. Prohibiting demolition-only grants almost guarantees this type 
of waste would occur.
  Additionally and finally, Mr. Chairman, let's not forget that the 
ultimate goal of this program is to empower people to eventually get 
off public housing and become self-determined, not simply to create 
more public housing units. I would submit in the greater scheme of 
things, it is also to have the Federal Government, through HUD, have 
the flexibility to work carefully and closely with local housing 
authorities to make sure that the right thing happens.
  By preventing HUD from having the authority to remove dilapidated 
housing without also rebuilding new units as Congress, we are certainly 
failing to live up to the spirit of this philosophy. I encourage all of 
my colleagues to support what I think is a commonsense amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, listening to the gentleman, one would think that the 
demolition-only program is a harmless program in the Federal 
Government. It is absolutely true that the Bush administration has 
decided not to use the demolition-only authority that the statute gives 
them since 2003, but there are reasons that they have decided not to 
use the demolition-only authority.
  Between 1996 and 2003, administrations made 285 demolition-only 
grants to 127 public housing authorities that resulted in demolishing, 
demolishing, 56,755 housing units, affordable housing units, in this 
country.

                              {time}  1230

  And the result was replacing less than half of those demolished 
housing units because we have had a net loss over that period of 30,000 
affordable housing units. So the administration in its good wisdom 
decided that this was a program that was counterproductive, was 
contrary in fact to the original objective of the HOPE VI program, and 
discontinued the use of the authority that it had because it didn't 
think it was a good program.
  Now, the case has been made well by a number of our committee 
members, Mr. Green from Texas in particular, that if there is anybody 
in America who thinks that there is an excess of affordable housing, 
they haven't read any statistics. If there is anybody in America who 
believes there is an excess of affordable public housing, or

[[Page H323]]

public housing, period, in America, they haven't read the statistics.
  So why the Federal Government would be giving money to local 
communities solely to tear down public housing, affordable housing in 
this country, given the dire shortage of housing in America and the 
massive existence of homelessness in America, I can't tell you.
  Now, HOPE VI allows local communities to demolish distressed public 
housing; and one of the concerns that this bill addresses is that we 
have tried to have a program to replace those houses so that people 
won't be on the street. And that is exactly what HOPE VI does. That 
part of it we need to retain. The demolition grants need to be 
terminated. This bill terminates demolition-only grants, and we should 
support the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman. What he said 
is let's take away the flexibility, notwithstanding that he has a 
disagreement with what the Clinton and the first term of this President 
has done.
  I think what we are doing is taking a tool away from the toolbox 
rather than flexibility. I believe it is local people who would ask for 
this to be done, anyway, and then the Federal Government can 
participate. But simply to say we have a house and we ought to keep it 
no matter what, is, in my opinion, a bad argument. It is a bad argument 
because keeping up something that is bad and needs repair and can't 
take care of itself, we need to get rid of those. We need to rebuild. 
That is what HOPE VI is all about. I hope you vote for my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT. I would just say the gentleman has made the exact point 
that I tried to make in my argument, probably even more cogently than I 
made it, that HOPE VI is about not only tearing down but rebuilding. 
And there is plenty of discretion in local communities inside the HOPE 
VI program to demolish public housing, as long as there is a plan to 
put housing back in place. And we have retained that authority to put 
housing back in place. The bill terminates the authority to just tear 
down rather than having the obligation to rebuild.
  I oppose the gentleman's amendment and encourage my colleagues to 
vote against it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


                   Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Lee

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 110-509.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Ms. Lee:
       Page 40, line 4, strike the quotation marks and the second 
     period.
       Page 40, after line 4, insert the following:
       ``(3) Public housing and section 8 eviction provisions.--In 
     the case of any public housing or housing assisted under 
     section 8, for which assistance is provided at any time 
     pursuant to a grant for a revitalization plan under this 
     section, the provisions of paragraph (6) of section 6(l) and 
     clause (iii) of section 8(d)(1)(B), respectively, shall 
     apply, except that any criminal or drug-related criminal 
     activity referred to in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) 
     of such paragraph or in the matter preceding subclause (I) of 
     such clause, respectively, engaged in by a member of a 
     tenant's household or any guest or other person under the 
     tenant's control, shall not be cause for termination of 
     tenancy of the tenant if--
       ``(A) the tenant is an elderly person (as such term is 
     defined in section 202(k) of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 
     U.S.C. 1701q)) or a person with disabilities (as such term is 
     defined in section 811(k) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National 
     Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013(k)), and
       ``(B) the tenant did not know and should not have known of 
     the activity or the tenant or member of household was the 
     victim of the criminal activity;''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 922, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank Chairman Barney Frank and 
our chairwoman, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, for their hard work in 
bringing to the floor this very critical legislation that reauthorizes 
HOPE VI for the first time in 6 years.
  As a former member of Congresswoman Waters' subcommittee, I saw 
firsthand her leadership on this and so many issues to create and 
expand affordable housing, to promote fair housing, to improve public 
housing, and to support the creation of a National Housing Trust Fund, 
among other initiatives. And so I know that, without her expertise and 
the chairman's expertise and their commitment, we wouldn't be 
considering today this truly important HOPE VI reauthorization bill. So 
I want to thank Congresswoman Waters and Chairman Frank for their 
leadership.
  In revitalizing public housing, the HOPE VI program is able to offer 
precisely that, and that is hope: hope for a better community, hope for 
a better future. And I know that in my own district, for example, in 
Oakland, California, the Mandela Gateway HOPE VI initiative is doing 
just that.
  Mr. Chairman, that is why I come to the floor today with a very 
simple amendment that builds on this hope. My amendment would allow 
Congress to stand up for the elderly and the disabled residents of 
public housing who are unwitting victims of the misdeeds of their 
relatives or guests. Specifically, this amendment would create a narrow 
exemption from the eviction rule for those who are elderly or disabled 
and who have committed no crime and have no knowledge of a crime being 
committed or are the actual victims of a crime. This amendment will 
give completely innocent tenants who are the most vulnerable a fighting 
chance to stay in their homes.
  It is sad that we have to stipulate this, but there is a history of 
these unfair evictions. Let me just share one. In 2002, the Supreme 
Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court and upheld the eviction order to 
remove a 63-year-old woman, Ms. Pearlie Rucker, from her home. The 
court did so despite the fact that she had committed no crime or had 
any knowledge that the crime was happening. The Court did so based on 
the criminal actions of her adult son and daughter, who committed their 
crime several blocks away from their home. The Court found that, 
because she had signed a lease that gave public housing authority the 
right to no-fault evictions, her inability to control the actions of 
other adults made her a threat to other tenants, and evicted her. This 
is just plain wrong.
  Unfortunately, Pearlie Rucker and her Supreme Court case has become 
the basis for more forced evictions of people who have committed no 
crime.
  So this amendment certainly does not want to stop our hardworking 
public housing authorities from providing low-income families with a 
safe place to live; but innocent, elderly, and disabled tenants must 
not have their housing rights stripped from them because of the actions 
of other individuals away from their homes. So as such, it is 
especially tragic that the elderly and the disabled are the most 
vulnerable but are the least able to effectively control the actions of 
their guests as fellow tenants should be held liable and punished for 
the actions of other adults.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this very simple amendment, and 
again I want to thank Congresswoman Waters and Chairman Frank for their 
leadership and their assistance with this.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 3524, to reauthorize the HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization 
Act of 2007, introduced by my distinguished colleague from California, 
Representative Maxine Waters. This important legislation will 
reauthorize and make changes to the HOPE VI public housing 
revitalization program. I would like to thank Congresswoman Waters for 
her consistent and dedicated work on this important issue, as well as 
to commend Chairman Frank for his leadership in bringing this bill to 
the floor today.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation reauthorizes, with important changes 
incorporated into the

[[Page H324]]

Manager's Amendment, the HOPE VI public housing revitalization program. 
Among other provisions, it provides for the retention of public housing 
units, protects residents from disruptions resulting from the grant, 
increases resident involvement, and improves the efficiency and 
expediency of construction. The HOPE VI program, created in 1992, has 
worked to improve the Nation's most dilapidated public housing units by 
providing much needed resources to public housing agencies. These funds 
have directly benefited countless Americans, particularly the elderly 
and those with disabilities, partnering with local agencies to improve 
conditions in public housing units and communities. I also support the 
technical changes made by the Manager's Amendment, and I believe that 
they will ensure that this legislation works to the maximum benefit of 
all Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, because I believe that this is strong and positive 
legislation, and I would like to take this opportunity to address a 
number of amendments offered by my distinguished colleagues. I would 
like to express my support for the amendment introduced by my 
colleague, Mr. Mahoney. This amendment will restore the set-aside funds 
for the Main Street grant program. Mr. Chairman, this important program 
provides resources for the revitalization of older, downtown business 
districts, while retaining an area's historical character. The Main 
Street grant program enables smaller communities to develop affordable 
housing while still retaining their traditional identity and roots in 
the past. I believe that this program is very important to countless 
communities across the Nation, seeking to provide for their citizens 
without losing sight of their shared history. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting Mr. Mahoney's amendment to restore 
funding for this program to this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I also strongly support the amendment introduced by my 
colleague, Congresswoman Lee. This amendment will safeguard the rights 
of elderly and disabled tenants living in HOPE VI housing. 
Congresswoman Lee's amendment prohibits the eviction of elderly or 
disabled tenants based on the criminal activities of others, provided 
that the elderly or disabled tenant did not have knowledge of the 
criminal activity. This important amendment improves the underlying 
legislation by ensuring that disadvantaged members of our communities 
are not further victimized for events beyond their control. It allows 
Congress to stand up for the rights of those living in public housing, 
preventing the eviction of elderly and disabled residents as the result 
of the wrongdoing of family members.
  However, I must oppose several amendments that I feel will harm the 
integrity of this bill. I stand opposed to the amendment offered by my 
colleague and fellow Texan Mr. Neugebauer, limiting the number of 
dwelling units that housing agencies are required to replace. Under the 
provisions of this amendment, only those units that are occupied as of 
the date of the HOPE VI application must be replaced, rather than 
requiring that all units torn down through the use of HOPE VI grants be 
replaced on a one-to-one basis. I strongly oppose this change, because 
I believe it weakens the one-for-one requirement in this legislation by 
creating incentives for housing agencies to increase the number of 
vacant units prior to seeking a HOPE VI grant, to decrease the overall 
number of units that must be replaced. I encourage my colleagues to 
join me in opposing this amendment, and in support of the underlying 
language.

  Mr. Chairman, I also must oppose the amendment offered by my 
colleague Mr. Sessions, reinstating the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development's authority to issue demolition-only grants. These grants, 
which have not been issued since 2003, provide resources for the 
demolition of properties and the relocation of families living there. 
While this legislation eliminates demolition-only grants, unless the 
demolition is done in connection with the replacement of dwelling 
units, ensuring that the total amount of units does not diminish. The 
adoption of this amendment would gut the strong replacement 
requirements of the underlying legislation, and would further reduce 
the already limited affordable housing stock in our nation.
  I also oppose the amendment offered by Congressman King of Iowa. This 
amendment would prohibit any amount authorized under this legislation 
from being used to pay wages in compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act. 
The adoption of this provision would in effect nullify the 
applicability of Davis-Bacon to the HOPE VI program. Mr. Chairman, the 
Davis-Bacon Wage Determinations are issued by the U.S. Department of 
Labor, and they indicate the prevailing wage rates in a region, to be 
paid on federally funded or assisted construction projects. These 
standards ensure that workers on Federal projects are paid a fair wage, 
and I believe it would be extremely detrimental to workers and to our 
economy as a whole to exempt HOPE VI projects from these standards.
  Mr. Chairman, I also stand in opposition to the amendment offered by 
my colleague Congresswoman Capito, eliminating the requirements that 
all grants must comply with minimum Green Building requirements. I 
believe today's legislation, as introduced, makes important steps 
forward toward responsible stewardship of our natural resources, and 
Ms. Capito's proposal that compliance with Green Building requirements 
be only one factor in the evaluation of grant applications would weaken 
our effort to protect our global environment. The Capito amendment 
would weaken the minimum standards for energy efficiency set forth in 
this bill, and would permit the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development to propose much weaker green development standards than are 
currently required under this bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
Capito amendment, and to keep the language set forth by this 
legislation.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this extremely 
important legislation by protecting the integrity of the underlying 
language, while making the technical corrections included in the 
Manager's Amendment to ensure that the intent of the legislation can be 
enacted.
  Ms. LEE. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 110-509.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
       Page 44, line 2, before the closing quotation marks insert 
     the following: ``None of the funds authorized to be 
     appropriated under this paragraph may used to pay wages in 
     compliance with subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, 
     United States Code.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 922, the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I offer to this 
bill that is before us today is an amendment that strikes the 
requirements for Davis-Bacon wage scale and prohibits any of the funds 
from going to Davis-Bacon wage scale. And for the information of the 
body, Davis-Bacon wage scale is a Federal wage scale that was imposed 
over 75 years ago in this country; and I could go back into the history 
of it, but the essence of Davis-Bacon wage scale is this: it imposes 
union scale on all projects and any projects that are $2,000 or more, 
which essentially are all projects.
  I am a Member of this Congress that has worked and lived under Davis-
Bacon wage scale, and I have done that for well over 30 years. I have 
done the homework, I have done the paperwork, I have put together the 
spreadsheets, and I dealt with all the employee dynamics that were 
involved there.
  And I make the point, Mr. Chairman, that labor is a commodity like 
corn or beans or gold or oil or gasoline, and the value of it needs to 
be determined by the marketplace, not by the government. And for the 
Federal Government to intervene in a relationship between two people, 
and a contractual relationship in particular, at the cost of the 
taxpayer that always favors going to a union scale and is not a 
prevailing wage but it is in effect a union scale, this authorization 
as written, if my amendment is not adopted, will cost the taxpayers an 
additional $26 million.
  And the inflation to construction projects runs between 8 percent and 
35 percent. I use the number 20 percent. It is a low average. But I am 
pledged here to protect the taxpayers, and I believe we need to protect 
the relationship between the employer and the employee. And if unions 
want to negotiate, I am all for their ability to do that, but I don't 
think it should be imposed by statute, a statute that cannot keep up 
with a change in the wage scale, a statute that is not effective, and 
one that, according to a Department of Labor Inspector General study, 
nearly 100 percent of the data cannot be relied upon. It is time to end 
this practice. It is archaic, and it is time to strike this provision 
out of here and eliminate Davis-Bacon wage scale.

[[Page H325]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Iowa very 
cleverly uses the words ``union scale.'' This is not union scale; this 
is prevailing wage scale. This is set by scientific surveys within a 
community, based upon what is the prevailing wage in that community. It 
moves from community to community. There is a reason for that.
  Davis-Bacon has been one of the foremost agents that we have been 
able to use in our entire economic structure to make sure that the 
American worker has a livable wage that maintains the standards in that 
community. The Davis-Bacon requirement has been on the books since 
1931, and, if I might add, put on by a Republican, one of my opponents' 
party members, President Hoover, and it has served us well.
  Now, this amendment is certainly an amendment that is very timely. 
Here we are in the throes of a recession, one of the most damaging 
economic crises that this Nation has faced in the last quarter of a 
century, and we have the gentleman from Iowa wanting to put on an 
amendment that would diametrically affect the living wages of the 
people who need the help the most.
  Now, by preventing workers on HOPE VI projects from earning a living 
wage is certainly not the right way to go. It is a hole in the head 
bucket strategy, given that those very same workers in the absence of 
Davis-Bacon protections would be unable to find housing themselves. A 
part of the HOPE VI mission, Mr. Chairman, is to make construction of 
units more efficient and to ensure that the HOPE VI housing units are 
more environmentally friendly and cost effective. The Davis-Bacon 
prevailing wages helps attract the necessary skilled workforce to build 
housing in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. This is a bad 
amendment.
  I yield 2 minutes to Mr. George Miller to put his statement in the 
Record at this point.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding, 
and I very much appreciate his remarks against this amendment to 
eliminate Davis-Bacon.
  You cannot build good solid communities on the backs of poor people, 
and you can't build good solid communities on the back of poor wages, 
poor working conditions. This is about prevailing wages; it is not 
about a union wage. They constantly year after year come and 
mischaracterize this amendment; they mischaracterize the program. But 
the fact of the matter is the majority in this House understands how 
important this provision is to working people in this country and to 
the communities in which these projects are being built. In fact, all 
projects in this country where we invest taxpayer money, we should get 
good projects, good wages and good working conditions for the people on 
those projects.
  I thank the gentleman for his statement.
  I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. King of 
Iowa.
  Here we have a bill to reauthorize the HOPE VI program. That program 
provides grants to localities for the construction, rehabilitation, 
and, in some cases, demolition of public housing units. That work is 
going to be done in some of the poorest neighborhoods in this country. 
That work is going to be done in areas with some of the highest 
unemployment in this country.
  And what does the King amendment do? It eliminates prevailing wage 
requirements for this work. It gives the money to contractors who would 
be free to pay poverty wages and pocket the rest as profit. This 
amendment worsens the cycle of poverty in the very areas that need the 
most help.
  But that's not all. This is taxpayer money. What do you get when you 
give taxpayer money to contractors who pay poverty wages and treat 
their workers poorly? You get shoddy work. And you have to spend more 
taxpayer money to fix it later.
  Let's summarize: The King amendment uses taxpayer money to worsen the 
cycle of poverty in the poorest neighborhoods in this country. It uses 
taxpayer money to buy shoddy work that just increases the costs later 
on. It's difficult to tell who the amendment is trying to hurt the 
most--the poor neighborhoods, the workers, or the taxpayers. This 
Amendment is outrageous and should be roundly defeated by this House.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the amount of time 
remaining for each party.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa has 3 minutes remaining; 
the gentleman from Georgia has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, first of all I say to the gentleman 
from California, that is offensive to me to say that my 28 years of 
meeting payroll, my 1,400-some consecutive weeks of making payroll, of 
providing health insurance and retirement benefits and year-around work 
for employees and a career path for them is, to take his words, poor 
wages and poor working conditions. My employees didn't think so, and 
neither did the people that applied for a job that I didn't have room 
to hire. That is not the way it works out there in the world. And who 
in this Congress has some experience that can step forward and say 
otherwise?

                              {time}  1245

  I lived it. I lived it all of my working life. I know what happens 
when you pay the excavator operator $28 an hour and the shovel operator 
$12 an hour. You can't get the guy on the excavator to get down and 
pick up the shovel to move a clod. You can't get him to pick up a 
grease gun. It destroys the relationship on the workplace, and it 
rearranges everybody's assignments. And so the guy running the finish 
motor grader is rolling clods out there because he doesn't want to get 
off the machine and pick up the grease gun, and your machines wear out. 
And the boss has got to come to work at 3 o'clock in the morning to do 
the maintenance. That's what happens when government gets in the way. 
And it costs money. The inflation goes up; 8 percent, 35 percent. I 
pick 20 percent. There is $26.4 million in this bill that is 
unnecessary.
  We have a shortage of labor. We are bringing in millions of people to 
unskilled jobs here in the United States because we say this economy 
cannot survive without that. And now we can't go without a union scale. 
That is union scale, Mr. Scott. And you can't show me any statistical 
evidence otherwise. It is the union operations that file the reports 
because those that are not union get organized and they get picketed.
  These people are smart. They are not foolish about this. And this is 
a Jim Crow law. We went through this before. This was New York City. It 
was a Federal building back in 1930 or 1931, and a contractor in New 
York City decided that he wanted to keep out the low bid that came from 
Alabama. The low bid came from Alabama because the labor could come 
from Alabama. Those didn't happen to be white people. Those were 
African Americans that came up and undercut the union wages in New York 
and that brought about this ``Republican'' bill.
  So I call it a Jim Crow bill. And I call it a racist bill, and it is 
one that has been now shoehorned into this economy, into this bill, 
into this legislation, in order to protect union wage scale.
  I have pledged to come here to preserve and protect the free 
enterprise side of this, the competition that is necessary for the 
efficiency that is here. And I will also protect the right of 
individuals to organize and negotiate for a good wage and good 
benefits. That's also a right we should have in this country.
  But this is not about prevailing wage. This is about union pay scale, 
and it was a bill that was rooted in Jim Crow laws that has now been 
transferred into union scale.
  I urge the adoption of my amendment. Save $26.4 million and protect 
the relationship between employers and employees and let me provide a 
12-month, year-round job with benefits and retirement funds so that 
people can plan their future, not hire them for 3 hours and let them go 
for the next rest of the week.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, let it be noted that the 
gentleman from Iowa, my good friend, is the one who brought up the race 
card, not I. But I will be the one who quickly puts it back into the 
middle of the deck, where it should stay and belong forever.
  The fact of the matter is this: For 77 years, Mr. Chairman, this 
country has had the prevailing wage. Not a union

[[Page H326]]

wage. The prevailing wage standards are set by scientific surveys of 
actual wages paid in the local communities, and anyone awarded a 
government contract pays at least those prevailing wages. It is not a 
union scale. If you had union scale, that is it no matter where you go. 
Prevailing wages are what is established based upon that local economy, 
that local situation.
  You talk about New York. When Hoover put this in in 1931, he didn't 
put it in for New York. It was for the entire Nation, because we were 
at the throes of the depression, at the beginning of the depression.
  And now in a similar situation, while we are not in the beginning of 
a depression, but certainly in a recession, you misguidedly, my good 
friend, want to remove it. How ironic.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a terrible amendment. It certainly is not the 
right time to even think about in any fashion any measure that would 
constrict the economic sector in this country rather than at a much 
greater need when we need to expand it, and we need to stand and 
protect the wage earner and working America on this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mrs. Capito

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 110-509.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mrs. Capito:
       Page 10, strike lines 13 through 16.
       Page 14, strike ``non-mandatory'' in lines 5 and 6 and all 
     that follows through line 14, and insert the following: 
     ``components of the green building rating system, standard, 
     or code determined by the Secretary pursuant to subsection 
     (l)(3); and''.
       Strike line 16 on page 14 and all that follows through page 
     15, line 5, and insert the following: ``construction, 
     complies with the components of the green building rating 
     system, standard, or code determined by the Secretary 
     pursuant to subsection (l)(3).''.
       Page 32, line 13, strike ``Requirement''.
       Strike line 14 on page 32 and all that follows through page 
     34, line 9.
       Page 34, line 10, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(1)''.
       Page 34, line 13, strike ``proposed''.
       Page 34, strike lines 15 through 18, and insert ``this 
     section is carried out in accordance with the terms included 
     in the approved plan pursuant to section (e)(2)(C)(xii)''.
       Page 35, after line 5, insert the following:
       ``(2) Identification of green buildings rating system, 
     standard, or code.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this section, the 
     Secretary shall identify a rating system, standard, or code 
     for green buildings that the Secretary determines to be a 
     comprehensive and environmentally-sound approach to 
     development of green buildings.
       ``(B) Criteria.--In identifying the green building rating 
     system, standard, or code under this paragraph, the Secretary 
     shall take into consideration--
       ``(i) the impact of the cost of the enhanced building 
     quality rating systems, standards, or codes on the number of 
     affordable housing units;
       ``(ii) the ability and availability of assessors and 
     auditors to independently verify the criteria and measurement 
     of metrics at the scale necessary to implement this 
     subsection;
       ``(iii) the ability of the applicable developer of the 
     rating system, standard, or code to collect and reflect 
     public comment;
       ``(iv) the ability of the rating system, standard, or code 
     to be developed and revised through a consensus-based 
     process;
       ``(v) an evaluation of the robustness of the criteria for a 
     high-performance green building, which shall give credit for 
     promoting--

       ``(I) efficient and sustainable use of land, water, energy, 
     and other natural resources;
       ``(II) use of renewable energy sources;
       ``(III) improved indoor environmental quality through 
     enhanced indoor air quality, day lighting, pollutant source 
     control, and use of low-emission materials and building 
     system controls; and
       ``(IV) such other criteria as the Secretary determines to 
     be appropriate; and

       ``(vi) whether the rating system, standard, or code is 
     accredited by a national standards developing organization.
       ``(C) 5-year evaluation.--At least once every five years, 
     the Secretary shall conduct a study to evaluate and compare 
     available third-party green building rating systems, 
     standards, and codes, taking into account the criteria 
     specified in subparagraph (B).''.
       Page 35, lines 9 through 11, strike ``national Green 
     Communities criteria checklist and LEED rating systems'' and 
     insert ``green building rating system, standard, or code''.
       Page 35, line 13, strike ``checklist and systems'' and 
     insert ``system, standard, or code''.
       Page 35, strike ``the national'' in line 20 and all that 
     follows through line 24, and insert the following: ``any 
     rating system, standard, or code that the Secretary has 
     determined to be appropriate pursuant to paragraph (3).''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 922, the 
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from West Virginia.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to the HOPE VI 
bill, and I would like to talk about first of all what this amendment 
does not do because my fear is the argument on the other side is going 
to distort what I really think the core of the discussion between my 
amendment and those opposed should be.
  This amendment in no way is an advocate for destroying or throwing 
out the window environmental or green building standards. That is not 
my goal or my intention with this amendment. It retains requirements 
for green building standards, but it looks at how we build green in a 
different way.
  In the bill presently, there is a mandatory building standard that 
has been a criteria that has been developed by a proprietary preference 
for one organization. My amendment would simply move this out of a 
mandated into the green communities specifically mandated criteria, and 
move it into a more flexible situation where the Secretary would then 
choose an appropriate green building standard, green building rating 
system and code that would address environmental considerations, and 
leaves flexibility for the Secretary, this Secretary and secretaries to 
follow, to be able to determine that criteria.
  We are going to be building these HOPE VI projects all across this 
Nation, and I think it is important to note that there should be some 
geographic considerations for green building standards across the 
country.
  We are also trying to find the best way to use our Federal dollars, 
to maximize the number of Federal housing units, while still adhering 
to good environmental standards.
  I have listened a lot over the last 60 years to housing projects that 
have been made, destroyed and rebuilt and why some of them haven't 
lasted as long as they should. I think by putting this amendment 
forward, I think I am taking into consideration that what we know today 
to be a good green building standard and to be in the best interest of 
an environment or a community or a quality of life in 3 years may be 
outdated. The technology may not be in front of us now that says if you 
look at your water this way or your air this way or your environmental 
considerations for the landscaping, that there is going to be a better 
way in 3 years.
  In this bill, I think we are locking down a certain proprietarily 
developed standard for green building. I think in selecting appropriate 
green building criteria, this gives HUD the ability to choose a green 
building system, a standard or code, in an open, consensus-based way. 
That is why I put forward this amendment to give HUD the flexibility 
not only for today but for the future.
  Again, I want to reiterate what this amendment does not do. It does 
not have a goal in mind of undercutting green building in an 
environmentally stable way to create new HOPE VI projects. Also in this 
amendment, it also requires the Secretary to conduct a review once 
every 5 years to determine if the chosen system and standard or code is 
still relevant, and I think that is appropriate in terms of innovation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first, there are two 
points,

[[Page H327]]

and the gentlewoman tends to confuse the two. One is should there be 
flexibility in the standard. Both versions have that. Our version says 
the green communities or a standard promulgated by the Secretary, but 
we say it has to be substantially equivalent in what it accomplishes.
  Secondly and more important, the bill with the manager's amendment 
says that a green component must be in any HOPE VI application. The 
gentlewoman dilutes that. She says it will be one factor that can be 
considered. But under her proposal, if you are very strong elsewhere, 
they would not have to be very much in the green. So there is a real 
difference there. We both say it is a good idea, but the bill says you 
must include the green component. Her bill says you may include the 
green component. You will get points if you do, but you might not. Both 
have flexibility as to how you reach that.
  Now I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Olver), the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on HUD and 
Transportation.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I have high respect for the gentlewoman from 
West Virginia, the ranking member of the subcommittee. In fact, I 
occupy now the apartment that she used before upgrading.
  But arguments in the builders' letter to Members promoting the 
amendment are specious and deliberately misleading. First of all, all 
references to LEED have been removed. Secondly, the letter greatly 
exaggerates the cost of green community criteria which are so strongly 
supported by the U.S. Council of Mayors and 40 other major 
organizations.
  A well-documented study of some 20 completed projects using these 
criteria, completed projects using these criteria, showed an average of 
only 2.4 percent increase in cost. We all need to remember that we 
build housing for 50 to 100 years. The small increased construction 
costs produce huge savings in lower monthly bills for energy for 
tenants. The low-income tenants have all of the remaining 50 years to 
accrue those savings after the payback comes within the first 5 to 7 
years of the program.
  I urge defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman if I 
left the apartment environmentally stable? I think I did.
  I yield 1 minute to my colleague from the Committee on Financial 
Services, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague and appreciate her 
leadership.
  Leave it to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to make an 
inefficient program even more inefficient. By imposing these arbitrary 
and uncredited green standards, it will drive up construction costs. 
And in the end, that means we will have fewer units put out in this 
housing program. And it also delays the spending of the $1.3 billion 
HOPE VI surplus that we currently have.
  I think it is a better use of the money to allow the Secretary to 
establish standards that are appropriate for the region, appropriate 
for the product being put out, and this gives the flexibility to do 
that.
  What I would say is that the Capito amendment still allows for green 
standards, high, strong, green standards, but it does not impose 
arbitrary standards. It allows for a collaborative effort for this to 
go forward, and it strikes the right balance, not a one-size-fits-all 
approach.
  I urge adoption of her amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from West Virginia has 30 
seconds remaining.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I would encourage a ``yes'' vote for my 
amendment to give the flexibility, to give the innovation and 
technology that we see every day in green and environmental building 
standards to move forward so we don't lock down in this bill.
  And when the gentleman just briefly says that the LEED standards were 
removed from the commercial building, yes, they were removed. Why? 
Because the union of carpenters that we heard about earlier were 
raising Cain because they were going to have to get their wood from 
imported wood to be able to meet these standards. That goes right to my 
point. We need to be reasonable, but we also need to make sure that we 
protect our environment and move forward with the best communities we 
can.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, Mr. Chairman, yes, the carpenters 
objected to the LEED standard. They did not object to the green 
community standard. We thought the objection was reasonable and met it.
  Secondly, again, the bill, without the gentlewoman's amendment, does 
provide flexibility. We say, however, that when HUD does an alternative 
proposal, it has to meet the minimum standard. That is the difference.

                              {time}  1300

  We put in the minimum. The other difference is that her amendment 
would allow some of the projects to go forward without green 
components, depending on how they were otherwise rated and others would 
not.
  I yield for the remainder of our time to the head of our Subcommittee 
on Energy Efficiency for the Financial Services Committee, my 
colleague, Mr. Perlmutter of Colorado.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I thank the chairman. I thank the chairwoman for 
bringing this bill. And Congresswoman Capito and I are part of this 
energy efficiency task force. And I know that she has strong feelings 
toward building in an energy-efficient, sustainable way. We have a big 
difference of opinion as to property rights on this one. And it's 
unusual, here in this instance, the Federal Government is the owner and 
the financer of these projects. It has the right, as any property owner 
does, as any owner does, to say how it wants its building built. And 
that's what's done within this proposal, within this bill, and that is 
to build these units in a green fashion. And so that, I think, is 
appropriate. It is an appropriate exercise of ownership to say we want 
these to be green. And the people of the United States of America in 
this last election said we have to be more energy conscious. We have to 
figure out a change to how we power this Nation and how we consume 
energy, and this is where we get started as a Federal Government.
  Now, one of the things we've talked about is the flexibility within 
the bill as to the standards to be used. We use the words 
``substantially equivalent.'' And if, in fact, HUD or EPA or the 
Department of Energy is being recalcitrant, isn't following through on 
developing substantially equivalent standards, you can bet that our 
side of the aisle will work with you and the various Departments to 
make sure they get off their fannies and they do develop some 
substantially equivalent standards so that there is flexibility.
  This is a good bill. This is a bad amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from West 
Virginia will be postponed.


                  Announcement By the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 110-509 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Waters of California.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Neugebauer of Texas.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Sessions of Texas.
  Amendment No. 6 by Mr. King of Iowa.
  Amendment No. 7 by Mrs. Capito of West Virginia.
  The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. 
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Waters

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California

[[Page H328]]

(Ms. Waters) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 388, 
noes 20, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 12]

                               AYES--388

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--20

     Akin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Broun (GA)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Feeney
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Hensarling
     Johnson, Sam
     Lamborn
     Linder
     Mack
     Miller (FL)
     Pence
     Royce
     Stearns
     Wilson (SC)

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Baca
     Baker
     Berkley
     Berry
     Brown (SC)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Faleomavaega
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Gordon
     Hobson
     Hunter
     Jefferson
     Kingston
     Lantos
     Lewis (KY)
     Miller, Gary
     Paul
     Schmidt
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Visclosky
     Wu

                              {time}  1321

  Messrs. LAMBORN, BARRETT of South Carolina, BARTLETT of Maryland and 
MACK changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BURGESS, CHABOT, Mrs. BONO, Mr. MACK and Mr. CONAWAY changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Neugebauer

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Neugebauer) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181, 
noes 227, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 13]

                               AYES--181

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--227

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver

[[Page H329]]


     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Baca
     Baker
     Berkley
     Berry
     Boehner
     Brown (SC)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Faleomavaega
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Hobson
     Hunter
     Jefferson
     Kingston
     Lantos
     Lewis (KY)
     Miller, Gary
     Paul
     Schmidt
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Visclosky
     Wu


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 
2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1336

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

                          ____________________