Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "565369970",
    "label": "Project Basing",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565369970"
}

{
    "id": "565369970",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565369970",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Project Basing",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565369970",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)",
        "Margy Waller's Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-017-016-2025/7367483-20200317S-017-016-2025-001.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-017-016-2025/7367483-20200317S-017-016-2025-001.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-017-016-2025/7367483-20200317S-017-016-2025-001.jpg",
    "imageCount": 80,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565369970",
    "naId": 565369970,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "otherTitles": [
        "7367483-20200317S-017-016-2025"
    ],
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 80,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-017-016-2025/7367483-20200317S-017-016-2025.pdf",
    "mediaId": "c4cff66e41368d66",
    "ocrText": "F:\\PCC\\APPROP\\HUD01\\ADMPROV.001\n1\nSECTION 8 PHA PROJECT-BASED ASSISTANCE\n2\nSEC. 2\n. (a) IN GENERAL.-Paragraph (13) of\n3 section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937\n4 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(13)) is amended to read as follows:\n5\n(13) PHA PROJECT-BASED ASSISTANCE.-\n6\n\"(A) IN GENERAL.-A public housing\n7\nagency may use amounts provided under an an-\n8\nnual contributions contract under this sub-\n9\nsection to enter into a housing assistance pay-\n10\nment contract with respect to an existing, newly\n11\nconstructed, or rehabilitated structure, that is\n12\nattached to the structure, subject to the limita-\n13\ntions and requirements of this paragraph.\n14\n\"(B) PERCENTAGE LIMITATION.-Not\n15\nmore than 20 percent of the funding available\n16\nfor tenant-based assistance under this section\n17\nthat is administered by the agency may be at-\n18\ntached to structures pursuant to this para-\n19\ngraph.\n20\n\"(C) CONSISTENCY WITH PHA PLAN AND\n21\nOTHER GOALS.-A public housing agency may\n22\napprove a housing assistance payment contract\n23\npursuant to this paragraph only if the contract\n24\nis consistent with-\nOctober 5, 2000\nF:\\V6\\100500\\100500.0B3\nF:\\PCC\\APPROP\\HUD01\\ADMPROV.001\n2\n1\n\"(i) the public housing agency plan\n2\nfor the agency approved under section 5A;\n3\nand\n4\n\"(ii) the goal of deconcentrating pov-\n5\nerty and expanding housing and economic\n6\nopportunities.\n7\n\"(D) INCOME MIXING REQUIREMENT.-\n8\n\"(i) IN GENERAL.-Not more than 25\n9\npercent of the dwelling units in any build-\n10\ning may be assisted under a housing as-\n11\nsistance payment contract for project-\n12\nbased assistance pursuant to this para-\n13\ngraph.\n14\n\"(ii) EXCEPTIONS.-The limitation\n15\nunder clause (i) shall not apply in the case\n16\nof assistance under a contract for housing\n17\nconsisting of single family properties or for\n18\ndwelling units that are specifically made\n19\navailable for households comprised of el-\n20\nderly families, disabled families, and fami-\n21\nlies receiving supportive services.\n22\n\"(E) RESIDENT CHOICE REQUIREMENT.-\n23\nA housing assistance payment contract pursu-\n24\nant to this paragraph shall provide as follows:\nOctober 5, 2000\nF:\\V6\\100500\\100500.0B3\nF:\\PCC\\APPROP\\HUD01\\ADMPROV.001\n3\n1\n\"(i) Мовплту.-Each low-income\n2\nfamily occupying a dwelling unit assisted\n3\nunder the contract may move from the\n4\nhousing at any time after the family has\n5\noccupied the dwelling unit for 12 months.\n6\n\"(ii) CONTINUED ASSISTANCE.-Upon\n7\nsuch a move, the public housing agency\n8\nshall provide the low-income family with\n9\ntenant-based rental assistance under this\n10\nsection or such other tenant-based rental\n11\nassistance that is subject to comparable in-\n12\ncome, assistance, rent contribution, afford-\n13\nability, and other requirements, as the Sec-\n14\nretary shall provide by regulation. If such\n15\nrental assistance is not immediately avail-\n16\nable to fulfill the requirement under the\n17\npreceding sentence with respect to a low-\n18\nincome family, such requirement may be\n19\nmet by providing the family priority to re-\n20\nceive the next voucher or other tenant-\n21\nbased rental assistance amounts that be-\n22\ncome available under the program used to\n23\nfulfill such requirement.\n24\n\"(F) CONTRACT TERM.-A housing assist-\n25\nance payment contract pursuant to this para-\nOctober 5, 2000\nF:\\V6\\100500\\100500.0B3\nF:\\PCC\\APPROP\\HUD01\\ADMPROV.001\n4\n1\ngraph between a public housing agency and the\n2\nowner of a structure may have a term of up to\n3\n10 years, subject to the availability of sufficient\n4\nappropriated funds for the purpose of renewing\n5\nexpiring contracts for assistance payments, as\n6\nprovided in appropriations Acts and in the\n7\nagency's annual contributions contract with the\n8\nSecretary, and to annual compliance with the\n9\ninspection requirements under paragraph (8),\n10\nexcept that the agency shall not be required to\n11\nmake annual inspections of each assisted unit\n12\nin the development. The contract may specify\n13\nadditional conditions for its continuation. If the\n14\nunits covered by the contract are owned by the\n15\nagency, the term of the contract shall be agreed\n16\nupon by the agency and the unit of general\n17\nlocal government or other entity approved by\n18\nthe Secretary in the manner provided under\n19\nparagraph (11).\n20\n\"(G) EXTENSION OF CONTRACT TERM.-A\n21\npublic housing agency may enter into a contract\n22\nwith the owner of a structure assisted under a\n23\nhousing assistance payment contract pursuant\n24\nto this paragraph to extend the term of the un-\n25\nderlying housing assistance payment contract\nOctober 5, 2000\nF:\\V6\\100500\\100500.0B3\nF:\\PCC\\APPROP\\HUD01\\ADMPROV.001\n5\n1\nfor such period as the agency determines to be\n2\nappropriate to achieve long-term affordability of\n3\nthe housing or to expand housing opportunities.\n4\nSuch a contract shall provide that the extension\n5\nof such term shall be contingent upon the fu-\n6\nture availability of appropriated funds for the\n7\npurpose of renewing expiring contracts for as-\n8\nsistance payments, as provided in appropria-\n9\ntions Acts, and may obligate the owner to have\n10\nsuch extensions of the underlying housing as-\n11\nsistance payment contract accepted by the\n12\nowner and the successors in interest of the\n13\nowner.\n14\n((H) RENT CALCULATION.-A housing as-\n15\nsistance payment contract pursuant to this\n16\nparagraph shall establish rents for each unit as-\n17\nsisted in an amount that does not exceed 110\n18\npercent of the applicable fair market rental (or\n19\nany exception payment standard approved by\n20\nthe Secretary pursuant to paragraph (1)(D)),\n21\nexcept that if a contract covers a dwelling unit\n22\nthat has been allocated low-income housing tax\n23\ncredits pursuant to section 42 of the Internal\n24\nRevenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 42) and is\n25\nnot located in a qualified census tract (as such\nOctober 5, 2000\nF:\\V6\\100500\\100500.0B3\nF:\\PCC\\APPROP\\HUD01\\ADMPROV.001\n6\n1\nterm is defined in subsection (d) of such section\n2\n42), the rent for such unit may be established\n3\nat any level that does not exceed the rent\n4\ncharged for comparable units in the building\n5\nthat also receive the low-income housing tax\n6\ncredit but do not have additional rental assist-\n7\nance. The rents established by housing assist-\n8\nance payment contracts pursuant to this para-\n9\ngraph may vary from the payment standards\n10\nestablished by the public housing agency pursu-\n11\nant to paragraph (1)(B), but shall be subject to\n12\nparagraph (10)(A).\n13\n\"(I) RENT ADJUSTMENTS.-A housing as-\n14\nsistance payments contract pursuant to this\n15\nparagraph shall provide for rent adjustments,\n16\nexcept that-\n17\n\"(i) the adjusted rent for any unit as-\n18\nsisted shall be reasonable in comparison\n19\nwith rents charged for comparable dwelling\n20\nunits in the private, unassisted, local mar-\n21\nket and may not exceed the maximum rent\n22\npermitted under subparagraph (H); and\n23\n(iii) the provisions of subsection\n24\n(c)(2)(C) shall not apply.\nOctober 5, 2000\nF:\\V6\\100500\\100500.0B3\nF:\\PCC\\APPROP\\HUD01\\ADMPROV.001\n7\n1\n\"(J) TENANT SELECTION.-A public hous-\n2\ning agency shall select families to receive\n3\nproject-based assistance pursuant to this para-\n4\ngraph from its waiting list for assistance under\n5\nthis subsection. Eligibility for such project-\n6\nbased assistance shall be subject to the provi-\n7\nsions of section 16(b) that apply to tenant-\n8\nbased assistance. The agency may establish\n9\npreferences or criteria for selection for a unit\n10\nassisted under this paragraph that are con-\n11\nsistent with the public housing agency plan for\n12\nthe agency approved under section 5A. Any\n13\nfamily that rejects an offer of project-based as-\n14\nsistance under this paragraph or that is re-\n15\njected for admission to a structure by the owner\n16\nor manager of a structure assisted under this\n17\nparagraph shall retain its place on the waiting\n18\nlist as if the offer had not been made. The\n19\nowner or manager of a structure assisted under\n20\nthis paragraph shall not admit any family to a\n21\ndwelling unit assisted under a contract pursu-\n22\nant to this paragraph other than a family re-\n23\nferred by the public housing agency from its\n24\nwaiting list. Subject to its waiting list policies\n25\nand selection preferences, a public housing\nOctober 5, 2000\nF:\\V6\\100500\\100500.0B3\nF:\\PCC\\APPROP\\HUD01\\ADMPROV.001\n8\n1\nagency may place on its waiting list a family re-\n2\nferred by the owner or manager of a structure\n3\nand may maintain a separate waiting list for\n4\nassistance under this paragraph, but only if all\n5\nfamilies on the agency's waiting list for assist-\n6\nance under this subsection are permitted to\n7\nplace their names on the separate list.\n8\n\"(K) VACATED UNITS.-Notwithstanding\n9\nparagraph (9), a housing assistance payment\n10\ncontract pursuant to this paragraph may pro-\n11\nvide as follows:\n12\n\"(i) PAYMENT FOR VACANT UNITS.-\n13\nThat the public housing agency may, in its\n14\ndiscretion, continue to provide assistance\n15\nunder the contract, for a reasonable period\n16\nnot exceeding 60 days, for a dwelling unit\n17\nthat becomes vacant, but only (I) if the va-\n18\ncancy was not the fault of the owner of the\n19\ndwelling unit, and (II) the agency and the\n20\nowner take every reasonable action to min-\n21\nimize the likelihood and extent of any such\n22\nvacancy. Rental assistance may not be pro-\n23\nvided for a vacant unit after the expiration\n24\nof such period.\nOctober 5, 2000\nF:\\V6\\100500\\100500.0B3\nF:\\PCC\\APPROP\\HUD01\\ADMPROV.001\n9\n1\n\"(ii) REDUCTION OF CONTRACT.-\n2\nThat, if despite reasonable efforts of the\n3\nagency and the owner to fill a vacant unit,\n4\nno eligible family has agreed to rent the\n5\nunit within 120 days after the owner has\n6\nnotified the agency of the vacancy, the\n7\nagency may reduce its housing assistance\n8\npayments contract with the owner by the\n9\namount equivalent to the remaining\n10\nmonths of subsidy attributable to the va-\n11\ncant unit. Amounts deobligated pursuant\n12\nto such a contract provision shall be avail-\n13\nable to the agency to provide assistance\n14\nunder this subsection.\n15\nEligible applicants for assistance under this\n16\nsubsection may enforce provisions authorized by\n17\nthis subparagraph.\".\n18\n(b) APPLICABILITY.-In the case of any dwelling unit\n19 that, upon the date of the enactment of this Act, is as-\n20 sisted under a housing assistance payment contract under\n21\nsection 8(o)(13) of the United States Housing Act of 1937\n22\n(42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(13)) as in effect before such enact-\n23\nment, such assistance may be extended or renewed not-\n24\nwithstanding the requirements under subparagraphs (C),\nshould also apply\nany thatrist 1411\nto 8(d)(2)\nOctober 5, 2000\nF:\\V6\\100500\\100500.0B3\npreduessor provision\nfor housing antirpropam\nF:\\PCC\\APPROP\\HUD01\\ADMPROV.001\n10\n1 (D), and (E) of such section 8(o)(13), as amended by sub-\n2 section (a).\n3 DISPOSITION OF HUD-HELD AND HUD-OWNED MULTI-\n4\nFAMILY PROJECTS FOR THE ELDERLY OR DISABLED\n5\nSEC. 2\n. Notwithstanding any other provision of\n6 law, in managing and disposing of any multifamily prop-\n7 erty that is owned or held by the Secretary and is occupied\n8 primarily by elderly or disabled families, the Secretary of\n9 Housing and Urban Development shall maintain any rent-\n10 al assistance payments under section 8 of the United\n11 States Housing Act of 1937 that are attached to any\n12 dwelling units in the property. To the extent the Secretary\n13 determines that such a multifamily property owned or held\n14 by the Secretary is not feasible for continued rental assist-\n15 ance payments under such section 8, the Secretary may,\n16 in consultation with the tenants of that property, contract\n17 for project-based rental assistance payments with an\n18 owner or owners of other existing housing properties or\n19 provide other rental assistance.\n20\nFAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM\n21\nSEC. 2\n. Section 8(x)(2) of the United States\n22 Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C 1437f(x)(2)) is\n23 amended-\n24\n(1) by striking \"any family (A) who is other-\n25\nwise eligible for such assistance, and (B)\" and in-\nOctober 5, 2000\nF:\\V6\\100500\\100500.0B3\nF:\\PCC\\APPROP\\HUD01\\ADMPROV.001\n11\n1\nserting \"(A) any family (i) who is otherwise eligible\n2\nfor such assistance, and (ii)\"; and\n3\n(2) by inserting before the period at the end the\n4\nfollowing: \"and (B) for a period not to exceed 18\n5\nmonths, otherwise eligible youths who have attained\n6\nat least 18 years of age and not more than 21 years\n7\nof age and who have left foster care at age 16 or\n8\nolder\".\n9\nPERMANENT EXTENSION OF FHA MULTIFAMILY\n10\nMORTGAGE CREDIT DEMONSTRATIONS\n11\nSEC. 2\n. Section 542 of the Housing and Commu-\n12 nity Development Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 1707 note) is\n13 amended-\n14\n(1) in subsection (a)-\n15\n(A) in the first sentence, by striking \"dem-\n16\nonstrate the effectiveness of providing\" and in-\n17\nserting \"provide\"; and\n18\n(B) in the second sentence, by striking\n19\n\"demonstration\" and inserting \"the\";\n20\n(2) in subsection (b)-\n21\n(A) in paragraph (1), by striking \"deter-\n22\nmine the effectiveness of\" and inserting \"pro-\n23\nvide\"; and\n24\n(B) by striking paragraph (5), and insert-\n25\ning the following new paragraph:\nOctober 5, 2000\nF:\\V6\\100500\\100500.0B3\nF:\\PCC\\APPROP\\HUD01\\ADMPROV.001\n12\n1\n\"(5) INSURANCE AUTHORITY.-Using any au-\n2\nthority provided in appropriation Acts to insure\n3\nmortgages under the National Housing Act, the Sec-\n4\nretary may enter into commitments under this sub-\n5\nsection for risk-sharing units.\";\n6\n(3) in subsection (c)-\n7\n(A) in paragraph (1), by striking \"test the\n8\neffectiveness of\" and inserting \"provide\"; and\n9\n(B) by striking paragraph (4) and insert-\n10\ning the following new paragraph:\n11\n\"(4) INSURANCE AUTHORITY.-Using any au-\n12\nthority provided in appropriation Acts to insure\n13\nmortgages under the National Housing Act, the Sec-\n14\nretary may enter into commitments under this sub-\n15\nsection for risk-sharing units.\";\n16\n(4) by striking subsection (d);\n17\n(5) by striking \"pilot\" and \"PILOT\" each place\n18\nsuch terms appear; and\n19\n(6) in the section heading, by striking \"DEM-\n20\nONSTRATIONS\" and inserting \"PROGRAMS\".\nOctober 5, 2000\nF:\\V6\\100500\\100500.0B3\nF:\\PCC\\APPROP\\HUD01\\ADMPROV.001\n1\nSECTION 8 PHA PROJECT-BASED ASSISTANCE\n2\nSEC. 2\n. (a) IN GENERAL.-Paragraph (13) of\n3 section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937\n4 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(13)) is amended to read as follows:\n5\n\"(13) PHA PROJECT-BASED ASSISTANCE.-\n6\n\"(A) IN 11 ERAL.-A public housing\n7\nagency may use amounts provided under an an-\n8\nnual contributions contract under this sub-\n9\nsection to enter into a housing assistance pay-\n10\nment contract with respect to an existing, newly\n11\nconstructed, or rehabilitated structure, that is\n12\nattached to the structure, subject to the re-\n13\nquirements 0:\ntragraph.\n14\n\"(B) PERCENTAGE LIMITATION.-Not\n15\nmore than 20 percent of the funding available\n16\nfor tenant-based assistance under this section\n17\nthat is administered by the agency may be at-\n18\ntached to structures pursuant to this para-\n19\ngraph.\n20\n\"(C) CONSISTENCY WITH PHA PLAN AND\n21\nOTHER GOALS.-The agency may approve a\n22\nhousing assistance payment contract under this\n23\nparagraph only if the contract is consistent\n24\nwith-\nOctober 4, 2000\nF:\\V6\\100400\\100400.0A6\nF:\\PCC\\APPROP\\HUD01\\ADMPROV.001\n2\n1\n\"(i) the public housing agency plan\n2\nfor the agency approved under section 5A;\n3\nand\n4\n\"(ii) the goal of deconcentrating pov-\n5\nerty and expanding housing and economic\n6\nopportuniti [*except that the requirement\n7\nunder this clause shall not apply in the case\n8\nof dwelling units assisted under the contract\n9\nthat are intended to be occupied primarily\n10\nby elderly or disabled families?]. [*NOTE:\n11\nDelete per David Reich e-mail of 10/2?]\n12\n\"(D) INCOME MIXING REQUIREMENT.-\n13\n\"(i) IN ENERAL.-In the case of any\n14\nbuilding in which any dwelling unit is as-\nVouchers\n15\nsisted under a housing assistance payment\n16\ncontract under this paragraph for project-\n17\nbased assistance, not more than 25 percent\n18\nof the dwelling units in the building may\n19\nbe occupied by low-income families who, at\n20\nthe time of the families' initial occupancy\n21\nof the units, were extremely low-income\n22\nfamilies.\n23\n\"(ii) EXCEPTIONS.-The limitation\n24\nunder the preceding sentence shall not\n25\napply in the case of assistance under a\nOctober 4, 2000\nF:\\V6\\100400\\100400.0A6\nF:\\PCC\\APPROP\\HUD01\\ADMPROV.001\n3\n1\ncontract [*for housing consisting of single\n2\nfamily properties or?] for dwelling units\n3\nthat are specifically made available for\n4\nhouseholds comprised of elderly families,\n5\ndisabled families, and families receiving\n6\nsupportive wices.\n7\n\"(iii) TREATMENT OF DECREASED\n8\nTENANT INCOME.-[*If the income of any\n9\nfamily occupying a dwelling unit in a\n10\nbuilding described in clause (i) decreases\n11\nsuch that building no complies with clause\n12\n(i), the building shall not be considered to\n13\nfail to comple with the requirement under\n14\nsuch clause despite temporary noncompli-\n15\nance with such requirement and dwelling\n16\nunits in the housing that are not assisted\n17\nunder the contract under this paragraph\n18\nand become vacant shall made available for\n19\noccupancy by families who are not ex-\n20\ntremely low-income families at the time of\n21\ninitial occupancy until the housing com-\n22\nplies with such requirement, in accordance\n23\nwith such requirements as the Secretary\n24\nmay prescribe.] [*NOTE: Is this provision\n25\nnecessary to ensure the income mix and pre-\nOctober 4, 2000\nF:\\V6\\100400\\100400.0A6\nF:\\PCC\\APPROP\\HUD01\\ADMPROV.001\n4\n1\nvent evictions for noncompliance with\n2\nclause (i)?]\n3\n\"(E) RESIDENT CHOICE REQUIREMENT.-\n4\n\"(i) REQUIREMENT.-A housing as-\n5\nsistance payment contract pursuant to this\n6\nparagraph hall provide that each dwelling\n7\nunit assisted under the contract shall com-\n8\nply with the requirements for resident\n9\nchoice assistance under clause (ii).\n10\n\"(ii) AGREEMENT.-A dwelling unit\n11\ncomplies with the requirements for resident\n12\nchoice assistance under this clause only if\n13\nthe low-inco family occupying the unit-\n14\n\"(I) may move from the housing\n15\nat any time after occupying the dwell-\n16\ning unit for 12 months; and\n17\n\"(II) upon such a move, pursu-\n18\nant to an agreement entered into be-\n19\ntween the owner of the housing and\n20\nthe public housing agency or by other\n21\nmeans, will be provided tenant-based\n22\nrental assistance under this section or\n23\nsuch other tenant-based rental assist-\n24\nance that is subject to comparable in-\n25\ncome, assistance, rent contribution,\nOctober 4, 2000\nF:\\V6\\100400\\100400.0A6\nF:\\PCC\\APPROP\\HUD01\\ADMPROV.001\n5\n1\naffordability, and other requirements,\n2\nas the Secretary shall provide by regu-\n3\nlation.\n4\nIf rental assistance is not immediately\n5\navailable to meet the requirement under\n6\nsubclause (II) with respect to a low-income\n7\nfamily, such requirement may be met by\n8\nproviding the family priority to receive the\n9\nnext voucher or other tenant-based rental\n10\nassistance amounts that become available\n11\nunder the program used pursuant to such\n12\nsubclause to fulfill such requirement.\n13\n\"(E) Co. This i' TERM.-A housing assist-\n14\nance payment contract pursuant to this para-\n15\ngraph between a public housing agency and the\n16\nowner of a structure may have a term of up to\n17\n10 years, subject to the availability of sufficient\n18\nappropriated funds for the purpose of renewing\n19\nexpiring contracts for assistance payments, as\n20\nprovided in appropriations Acts and in the\n21\nagency's annual contributions contract with the\n22\nSecretary, and to annual compliance with the\n23\ninspection requirements under paragraph (8),\n24\nexcept that the agency shall not be required to\n25\nmake annual inspections of each assisted unit\nOctober 4, 2000\nF:\\V6\\100400\\100400.0A6\nF:\\PCC\\APPROP\\HUD01\\ADMPROV.001\n6\n1\nin the development. The contract may specify\n2\nadditional conditions for its continuation. If the\n3\nunits covered by the contract are owned by the\n4\nagency, the term of the contract shall be agreed\n5\nupon by the agency and the unit of general\n6\nlocal government or other entity approved by\n7\nthe Secretary in the manner provided under\n8\nparagraph (11).\n9\n\"(F) EXTENSION OF CONTRACT TERM.-A\n10\npublic housing agency may enter into a contract\n11\nwith the owner of a structure assisted under a\n12\nhousing assist:\nv payment contract under this\n13\nparagraph to extend the term of the underlying\n14\nhousing assistance payment contract for such\n15\nperiod as the agency determines to be appro-\n16\npriate to achieve long-term affordability of the\n17\nhousing or to expand housing opportunities.\n18\nSuch a contract shall provide that the extension\n19\nof such term shall be contingent upon the fu-\n20\nture availability of appropriated funds for the\n21\npurpose of renewing expiring contracts for as-\n22\nsistance payments, as provided in appropria-\n23\ntions Acts, and may obligate the owner to have\n24\nsuch extensions of the underlying housing as-\n25\nsistance payment contract accepted by the\nOctober 4, 2000\nF:\\V6\\100400\\100400.0A6\nF:\\PCC\\APPROP\\HUD01\\ADMPROV.001\n7\n1\nowner and the successors in interest of the\n2\nowner.\n3\n\"(G) RENT CALCULATION.-A housing as-\n4\nsistance payment contract pursuant to this\n5\nparagraph shall establish rents for each unit as-\n6\nsisted in an amount that does not exceed 110\n7\npercent of the applicable fair market rental (or\n8\nany exception payment standard approved by\n9\nthe Secretary pursuant to paragraph (1)(D)),\n10\nexcept that if a contract covers a dwelling unit\n11\nthat has been allocated low-income housing tax\n12\ncredits pursuant to section 42 of the Internal\n13\nRevenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 42) and is\n14\nnot located in a qualified census tract (as such\n15\nterm is defined in subsection (d) of such section\n16\n42), the rent for such unit may be established\n17\nat any level that does not exceed the rent\n18\ncharged for comparable units in the building\n19\nthat also receive the low-income housing tax\n20\ncredit but do not have additional rental assist-\n21\nance. The rents established by housing assist-\n22\nance payment contracts pursuant to this para-\n23\ngraph may vary from the payment standards\n24\nestablished by the public housing agency pursu-\nOctober 4, 2000\nF:\\V6\\100400\\100400.0A6\nF:\\PCC\\APPROP\\HUD01\\ADMPROV.001\n8\n1\nant to paragraph (1)(B), but shall be subject to\n2\nparagraph (10)(A).\n3\n(H) RENT ADJUSTMENTS.-A housing as-\n4\nsistance payments contract pursuant to this\n5\nparagraph sheal provide for rent adjustments,\n6\nexcept that-\n7\n\"(i) the adjusted rent for any unit as-\n8\nsisted shall be reasonable in comparison\n9\nwith rents charged for comparable dwelling\n10\nunits in the private, unassisted, local mar-\n11\nket and may not exceed the maximum rent\n12\npermitted under subparagraph (G); and\n13\n\"(ii) the provisions of subsection\n14\n(c)(2)(C) shall not apply.\n15\n\"(I) TENANT SELECTION.-A public hous-\n16\ning agency shall select families to receive\n17\nproject-based assistance pursuant to this para-\n18\ngraph from its waiting list for assistance under\n19\nthis subsection. Eligibility for such project-\n20\nbased assistance shall be subject to the provi-\n21\nsions of section 16(b) that apply to tenant-\n22\nbased assistance. The agency may establish\n23\npreferences or criteria for selection for a unit\n24\nassisted under this paragraph that are con-\n25\nsistent with the public housing agency plan for\nOctober 4, 2000\nF:\\V6\\100400\\100400.0A6\nF:\\PCC\\APPROP\\HUD01\\ADMPROV.001\n9\n1\nthe agency approved under section 5A. Any\n2\nfamily that rejects an offer of project-based as-\n3\nsistance under this paragraph or that is re-\n4\njected for admission to a structure by the owner\n5\nor manager of ? structure assisted under this\n6\nparagraph shall retain its place on the waiting\n7\nlist as if the offer had not been made. The\n8\nowner or manager of a structure assisted under\n9\nthis paragraph shall not admit any family to a\n10\ndwelling unit assisted under a contract pursu-\n11\nant to this paragraph other than a family re-\n12\nferred by the public housing agency from its\n13\nwaiting list. Subject to its waiting list policies\n14\nand selection preferences, a public housing\n15\nagency may place on its waiting list a family re-\n16\nferred by the owner or manager of a structure\n17\nand may maintain a separate waiting list for\n18\nassistance under this paragraph, but only if all\n19\nfamilies on the agency's waiting list for assist-\n20\nance under this subsection are permitted to\n21\nplace their names on the separate list.\n22\n\"(J) VACATED UNITS.-Notwithstanding\n23\nparagraph (9), a housing assistance payment\n24\ncontract under this paragraph may provide as\n25\nfollows:\nOctober 4, 2000\nF:\\V6\\100400\\100400.0A6\nF:\\PCC\\APPROP\\HUD01\\ADMPROV.001\n10\n1\n\"(i) PAYMENT FOR VACANT UNITS.-\n2\nThat the public housing agency may, in its\n3\ndiscretion, continue to provide assistance\n4\nunder the contract, for a reasonable period\n5\nnot exceeding 60 days, for a dwelling unit\n6\nthat becomes vacant, but only (I) if the va-\n7\ncancy was not the fault of the owner of the\n8\ndwelling unit, and (II) the agency and the\n9\nowner take every reasonable action to min-\n10\nimize the likelihood and extent of any such\n11\nvacancy. Rental assistance may not be pro-\n12\nvided for 2 vacant unit after the expiration\n13\nof such period.\n14\n\"(ii) REDUCTION OF CONTRACT.-\n15\nThat, if despite reasonable efforts of the\n16\nagency and the owner to fill a vacant unit,\n17\nno eligible family has agreed to rent the\n18\nunit within 120 days after the owner has\n19\nnotified the agency of the vacancy, the\n20\nagency may reduce its housing assistance\n21\npayments contract with the owner by the\n22\namount equivalent to the remaining\n23\nmonths of subsidy attributable to the va-\n24\ncant unit. Amounts deobligated pursuant\n25\nto such a contract provision shall be avail-\nOctober 4, 2000\nF:\\V6\\100400\\100400.0A6\nF:\\PCC\\APPROP\\HUD01\\ADMPROV.001\n11\n1\nable to the agency to provide assistance\n2\nunder this subsection.\n3\nEligible applicants for assistance under this\n4\nsubsection may enforce provisions authorized by\n5\nthis subparagraph.\".\n6\n(b) DEFINITION.-Section 3(b)(2) of the United\n7 States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)(2)) is\n8 amended by inserting after the second sentence the fol-\n9 lowing new sentence: \"The term 'extremely low-income\n10 families' means families whose incomes do not exceed 30\n11 percent of the median income for the area, as determined\n12 by the Secretary with adjustments for smaller and larger\n13 families, except that the Secretary may establish income\n14 ceilings higher or lower than 30 percent of the median\n15 for the area on the basis of the Secretary's findings that\n16 such variations are necessary because of unusually high\n17 or low family incomes.\".\n18\n(c) APPLICABILITY.-In the case of any dwelling unit\n19 that, upon the date of the enactment of this Act, is as-\n20 sisted under a housing assistance payment contract under\n21 section 8(o)(13) of the United States Housing Act of 1937\n22 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(13)) as in effect before such enact-\n23 ment, such assistance may be extended or renewed not-\n24 withstanding the requirements under subparagraphs (C),\nOctober 4, 2000\nF:\\V6\\100400\\100400.0A6\nF:\\PCC\\APPROP\\HUD01\\ADMPROV.001\n12\n1 (D), and (E) of such section 8(o)(13), as amended by sub-\n2 section (a).\n3 DISPOSITION OF HUD-HELD AND HUD-OWNED MULTI-\n4\nFAMILY PROJECTS FOR THE ELDERLY OR DISABLED\n5\nSEC. 2\n. Notwithstanding any other provision of\n6 law, in managing and disposing of any multifamily prop-\n7 erty that is owned or held by the Secretary and is occupied\n8 primarily by elderly or disabled families, the Secretary of\n9 Housing and Urban Development shall maintain any rent-\n10 al assistance payments under section 8 of the United\n11 States Housing Act of 1937 that are attached to any\n12 dwelling units in the property. To the extent the Secretary\n13 determines that such a multifamily property owned or held\n14 by the Secretary is not feasible for continued rental assist-\n15 ance payments under such section 8, the Secretary may,\n16 in consultation with the tenants of that property, contract\n17 for project-based rental assistance payments with an\n18 owner or owners of other existing housing properties or\n19 provide other rental assistance.\n20\nFAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM\n21\nSEC. 2\n. Section 8(x)(2) of the United States\n22 Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C 1437f(x)(2)) is\n23 amended-\n24\n(1) by striking \"any family (A) who is other-\n25\nwise eligible for such assistance, and (B)\" and in-\nOctober 4, 2000\nF:\\V6\\100400\\100400.0A6\nF:\\PCC\\APPROP\\HUD01\\ADMPROV.001\n13\n1\nserting \"(A) any family (i) who is otherwise eligible\n2\nfor such assistance, and (ii)\"; and\n3\n(2) by inserting before the period at the end the\n4\nfollowing: \"and (B) for a period not to exceed 18\n5\nmonths, otherwise eligible youths who have attained\n6\nat least 18 years of age and not more than 21 years\n7\nof age and who have left foster care at age 16 or\n8\nolder\".\n9\nPERMANENT EXTENSION OF FHA MULTIFAMILY\n10\nMORTGAGE CREDIT DEMONSTRATIONS\n11\nSEC. 2\n. Section 542 of the Housing and Commu-\n12 nity Development Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 1707 note) is\n13 amended-\n14\n(1) in subsection (a)-\n15\n(A) in the first sentence, by striking \"dem-\n16\nonstrate the effectiveness of providing\" and in-\n17\nserting \"provide\"; and\n18\n(B) in the second sentence, by striking\n19\n\"demonstration\" and inserting \"the\";\n20\n(2) in subsection (b)-\n21\n(A) in paragraph (1), by striking \"deter-\n22\nmine the effectiveness of\" and inserting \"pro-\n23\nvide\"; and\n24\n(B) by striking paragraph (5), and insert-\n25\ning the following new paragraph:\nOctober 4, 2000\nF:\\V6\\100400\\100400.0A6\nF:\\PCC\\APPROP\\HUD01\\ADMPROV.001\n14\n1\n\"(5) INSURANCE AUTHORITY.-Using any au-\n2\nthority provided in appropriation Acts to insure\n3\nmortgages under the National Housing Act, the Sec-\n4\nretary may enter into commitments under this sub-\n5\nsection for risk-sharing units.\";\n6\n(3) in subsection (c)-\n7\n(A) in paragraph (1), by striking \"test the\n8\neffectiveness of\" and inserting \"provide\"; and\n9\n(B) by striking paragraph (4) and insert-\n10\ning the following new paragraph:\n11\n\"(4) INSURANCE AUTHORITY.-Using any au-\n12\nthority provided in appropriation Acts to insure\n13\nmortgages under the National Housing Act, the Sec-\n14\nretary may enter into commitments under this sub-\n15\nsection for risk-sharing units.\";\n16\n(4) by striking subsection (d);\n17\n(5) by striking \"pilot\" and \"PILOT\" each place\n18\nsuch terms appear; and\n19\n(6) in the section heading, by striking \"DEM-\n20\nONSTRATIONS\" and inserting \"PROGRAMS\".\nOctober 4, 2000\nF:\\V6\\100400\\100400.0A6\nBarbara Sard <[email protected]>\n09/20/2000 03:53:32 PM\nRecord Type: Record\nTo:\nMargy Waller/OPD/EOP, \"F. Stevens Redburn\" <[email protected]>\nCC:\nSubject: redraft\nI'm attaching [and inserting below] language to implement the discussion today concerning limiting the\nnumber of units in a development that may receive project-based assistance. This is a redraft of\nparagraph (13)(A)(iii) of section 8(o) from the 8/29/00 version I had sent you.\nDrafting it raised two questions for me that I had not previously focused on.\n1) Do you want the limit to apply regardless of whether the tenants are elderly or disabled? If so, the\nfirst clause that appears in brackets in the attachments should be stricken. I think there are good\narguments on both sides of this issue, and will agree to whatever you prefer.\n2) I was not comfortable having no cap in poor neighborhoods, even with the continued assistance\noption, so I retained the cap of 50% in such neighborhoods. This seems consistent with the views\nexpressed at the meeting, but I wanted to point it out as we did not explicitly address it.\nI have not received any other language from either of you or Jim Johnson about the two other\nproject-based issues or 206. The Center would like to get language to Congressional staff on these\nmatters no later than tomorrow morning.\n***\n(iii) [Except when units assisted under this paragraph are intended to be occupied primarily by elderly or\ndisabled families,] the approval of a housing assistance payment contract under this paragraph must be\nconsistent with the goal of deconcentrating poverty and expanding housing and economic opportunities.\nThis objective may be met by attaching assistance to no more than 25 percent of the total number of units\nin a development a dwelling unit located in a low-poverty area or in an area of high job growth or by\nattaching assistance to fewer than half of the dwelling units in a development that is not in a low-poverty\nor high job growth area. The Secretary may by regulation define what constitutes a \"low-poverty\" and a\n\"high job growth\" area. or, if a PHA attaches assistance to more than 25 percent of the units, by providing\nall families in the development occupying units with project-based assistance a Continued Assistance\nOption as defined in subparagraph (ii) above. If a development is not located in a low-poverty or high job\ngrowth area, assistance may not be attached to more than 50 percent of the units. The Secretary may by\nregulation define what constitutes a \"low-poverty\" and a \"high job growth\" area.\nBarbara Sard, Director of Housing Policy\nCenter on Budget and Policy Priorities\nLocal phone: 617-566-1154\nLocal fax: 617-232-2903\n- att1.htm\n- % limit draft 9-20-00.wpd\n(iii) [Except when units assisted under this paragraph are intended to be occupied primarily by\nelderly or disabled families,] the approval of a housing assistance payment contract under this\nparagraph must be consistent with the goal of deconcentrating poverty and expanding housing\nand economic opportunities. This objective may be met by attaching assistance to no more than\n25 percent of the total number of units in a development a dwelling unit located in a low poverty\narea or in an area of high job growth or by attaching assistance to fewer than half of the dwelling\nunits in a development that is not in a low pc ty or high job growth area. The Secretary may\nby regulation define what constitutes a \"low powerty\" and a \"high job growth\" area. or, if a PHA\nattaches assistance to more than 25 percent of the units, by providing all families in the\ndevelopment occupying units with project-based assistance a Continued Assistance Option as\ndefined in subparagraph (ii) above. If a development is not located in a low-poverty or high job\ngrowth area, assistance may not be attached to more than 50 percent of the units. The Secretary\nmay by regulation define what constitutes a \"low-poverty\" and a \"high job growth\" area.\nBarbara Sard <[email protected]\n08/29/2000 08:16:28 PM\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nMargy Waller/OPD/EOP\nCC:\nSee the distribution list at the bottom of this message\nSubject: \"Alternative\" project-based vouchers\nTo accommodate the Administration's concern\nas reasonable number of families refuse to accept a\nproject-based unit, the PHA should not remain Jb! gated under a project-based contract, thereby depriving\nwaiting list families of tenant-based vouchers, I suggest the following revision to my proposed revision of\n8(o)(13). The addition is indicated by italics. (Tine re sed paragraph (G) is also attached as a wp\ndocument.)\nAfter consultation with a number of knowledgeable folks, I changed the draft in a few respects. I was\npersuaded that it was important to make the time period after which the contract would be reduced 120\ndays rather than fewer for several reasons. The owner may only feel some financial pinch after the first\n60 days (during which vacancy payments may be made), so giving more time may make the owner agree\nto rent to a willing tenant even if the owner had previously rejected applicants. In addition, a tenant may\nwant to rent the new unit but have to give notice under his/her current lease. The longer time period also\nwill permit owners to do necessary repairs for the unit to pass inspection on re-rental. These\nconsiderations seemed to me to more than balance cut a few months additional lag before the assistance\nis reprogrammed for issuance as a voucher.\nThe other substantive change I made was to make the use of this contract reduction authority\ndiscretionary with the PHA rather than mandatory. : was persuaded to do this by Conrad Egan of the\nNatl. Housing Conference. The reason to permit a PHA to decide this issue is that in some markets, the\nadditional risk to the owner may not interfere unduly with the PHA's ability to project-base vouchers, but in\nother markets the additional risk may be a deal-breaker. Similarly, where project-basing is linked to new d\nevelopment or rehab that requires credit, a lender may be less willing to rely on the voucher contract as\npart of the collateral for the loan if the contract may be reduced by the PHA during its term. However, in\nhighly desirable markets, a lender may not be deterred by such a reduction provision as there would be\nlittle likelihood of the provision ever being invoked. Overall, these considerations appear to be so locally\nvariable that it would be unwise to have a uniform national policy.\nThe initial language below would make the new provision apply to all project-based voucher contracts,\nincluding new incremental vouchers project-based in tax credit buildings pursuant to the Administration's\nproposal. After the suggested language to be added to 8(o)(13)(G), I suggest alternative language if the\nnew provision were to apply only to the tax credit/voucher program.\n(G) VACATED UNITS. - Notwithstanding paragraph (3) of this subsection, a public housing agency's\nhousing assistance payment contract with an owner under this paragraph may authorize the agency in its\ndiscretion to pay the rent of a vacated unit from funds available under the agency's annual contributions\ncontract with the Secretary for a reasonable period not to exceed 60 days where the vacancy is not due to\nany fault of the owner. The contract must obligate both the public housing agency and the owner to take\nevery reasonable step to minimize the likelihood and extent of any such vacancy. A public housing\nagency's housing assistance payment contract with an owner under this paragraph may provide that if no\neligible family has agreed to rent a vacated unit within 120 days after the owner has notified the public\nhousing agency of the vacancy despite the reasonable efforts of the agency and the owner to refer eligible\nfamilies and rent the unit, the public housing agency may reduce its contract with the owner by the\namount equivalent to the remaining months of subsidy for the vacated unit. Funds deobligated pursuant to\nsuch a provision shall be made available by the agency to provide assistance under this subsection.\nEligible applicants for assistance under this subsection may enforce the provisions of this subparagraph.\nIf instead it was decided to apply the new provision only to new incremental vouchers project-based in tax\ncredit buildings pursuant to the Administration's proposal, the italicized language would be included in the\nlist of \"use restrictions\" under that provision. (In the Administration's sec. 217 proposal, the \"use\nrestrictions\" are in subparagraph (e). In my revision, they are in subparagraph 13(H)(v).) If Congress\nwere to adopt language authorizing the tax credit/voucher program without otherwise amending sec.\n8(o)(13), the provision to be added to the \"use restrictions\" section could read as follows:\nA public housing agency's housing assistance payment contract with an owner under this paragraph may\nspecify that if no eligible family has agreed to rent a vacated unit within 120 days after the owner has\nnotified the public housing agency of the vacancy dedbite the reasonable efforts of the agency and the\nowner to refer eligible families and rent the unit, the public housing agency may reduce its contract with\nthe owner by the amount equivalent to the remaining me nths of subsidy for the vacated unit. Funds\ndeobligated pursuant to such a provision shall be made available by the agency to provide assistance\nunder this subsection. Eligible applicants for assistance under this subsection may enforce the provisions\nof this subparagraph.\nI'm also attaching the complete text of the proposed revised section 8(o)(13), along with the revised cover\nmemo. In addition to the changes as above in subparagraph (G), I have modified subparagraph (F) to\ntake account of the views expressed by many PHA directors that using a separate waiting list for a\nproject-based program is much simpler administratively. As revised, a PHA may use a single waiting list\nor separate lists, but all families on the separate project-based waiting list must be listed on the te\nnant-based waiting list (even if the tenant-based list were otherwise closed) and families on the\ntenant-based waiting list (that meet any special criteria for admission to the project-based program) must\nbe offered the opportunity to be listed on the project-based waiting list.\nBarbara Sard, Director of Housing Policy\nCenter on Budget and Policy Priorities\nLocal phone: 617-566-1154\nLocal fax: 617-232-2903\n- att1.htm\n- vacancy redraft 8-29-00.wpd\n- 00-8-29 cover for revised 8(o)(13).wpd\n- bill language 8-29-00.wpd\nMessage Copied To:\nConrad Egan <[email protected]>\n\"Roger Clay, Jr.\" <[email protected]>\nJonathan Harwitz <[email protected]>\nCathy Bishop <[email protected]>\nJim Grow <[email protected]>\nAnn O'Hara <[email protected]>\nAaron Gornstein <[email protected]>\n\"Cushing N. Dolbeare\" <[email protected]>\nSheila Crowley <[email protected]>\nJenn Fogel-Bublich <[email protected]>\nSteve Renahan <[email protected]>\nJulio Barreto <[email protected]>\nCENTER ON BUDGET\nAND POLICY PRIORITIES\nMEMORANDUM\nTo:\nPersons interested in the \"projed ing\" of Section 8 housing vouchers\nFrom: Barbara Sard\nRe:\nProposed amendment to Section 8(o)(13) of the U.S. Housing Act\nDate: August 29, 2000\nAttached is a proposed revision of the project-based voucher provision of the U.S.\nHousing Act, Section 8(o)(13) (42 U.S.C. § 1432%)(13). This revision would accomplish three\nprimary goals:\n1)\nIt would make the option to PIC base vouchers more flexible for public\nhousing agencies (PHAs) to use in order to enhance voucher utilization as well as\nto foster rehabilitation or new construction, depending on the needs of their local\nhousing markets.\n2)\nIt would authorize PHAs, at their discretion, to offer families with project-based\nvouchers a \"Continued Assistance Option\" - a new program variant that would\nallow families to move and retain federal housing assistance. Under the\nContinued Assistance Option, a PHA would agree to link a specified number of\nsubsidies to a particular development for up to ten years. The initial families\nwould be selected by the manager of the development from among families\nreferred by the PHA. Unlike the current project-based certificate program,\nhowever, families with the Continued Assistance Option would have the right to\nmove (after one year) and retain federal housing assistance. Families that wished\nto move would receive the next available \"turnover\" voucher from the PHA's\nportfolio. Families that moved from a subsidized unit would be replaced by\nfamilies referred from the PHA's waiting list, ensuring that the specified number\nof subsidies continue to be utilized at the development throughout the term of the\nPHA's contract with the owner. About 10 percent of existing housing vouchers\nbecome available for reissuance each year as families leave the program, making\nthis option feasible for all but the smallest PHAs.\n820 First Street, NE, Suite 510, Washington, DC 20002\nTel: 202-408-1080\nFax: 202-408-1056\[email protected]\nhttp://www.cbpp.org\n3)\nIt would authorize a modified version of the Housing Production Voucher (HPV)\nprogram contained in Section 217 of the Administration's FY 2001 budget\nrequest. If funded, the modified HPV program would provide vouchers to\ninterested state housing tax credit agencies that would be used to help make a\nmodest portion of low-income housing tax credit developments (and so-called\n\"risk sharing\" developments) affordable to families with incomes below 30\npercent of the area median income. All families that received project-based\nvouchers through the modified HPV program would be entitled to the Continued\nAssistance Option.\nBelow is a brief list of the changes this proposal would make to existing statutory law and\nthe Administration's Section 217 proposal, in the order in which they appear in the attached text.\nPHAs would be permitted to project-base up to 15 percent of their voucher funding\nwithout any requirement that owners invest additional funding in the units. (Currently,\nconstruction or rehabilitation costs of at least $1,000 per unit are required before a unit\nmay receive a project-based voucher.) This change would allow PHAs to decide whether\nto link project-basing to new construction or rehab or simply to use project-basing as a\ntool to promote voucher utilization and expand housing opportunities.\nTo promote consistency with the PHA\nprocess, a PHA's decision to project-base\nvouchers\nwould\nhave\nto\nbe\nconsi\nwith\nthe housing needs and strategies identified in\nthe PHA plan. In addition, except wi n units in a development are intended to house\nelderly and disabled families, a PHA's\nde\non\nto\nproject-base\nvouchers\nwould\nhave\nto\nbe consistent with the goal of deconcentrating poverty and expanding housing\nopportunity. This objective may be met by attaching assistance to a dwelling unit located\nin a low-poverty area or in an area in which employment opportunities are expanding or\nby attaching assistance to fewer than half of the dwelling units in a development that is\nnot in a low-poverty or job growth area.\nPHAs would be authorized to provide a Continued Assistance Option to families with\nproject-based vouchers. A description of the Continued Assistance Option is provided on\nthe first page, above. (Again, to promote consistency with the PHA Plan, PHAs would\nhave to state in their annual Plan whether they will use this option.)\nPHAs would have discretion to detern the initial contract term up to a maximum of\nten years. (HUD's project-based certificate [PBC] regulations now set the maximum\nterm at 5 years.) All contracts would be subject to the availability of adequate annual\nappropriations.\nProject-based voucher contracts would be subject to the same annual inspection\nrequirements as regular vouchers, except that a PHA would be permitted to develop a\nstreamlined inspection system for the development rather than inspecting each unit each\nyear.\n820 First Street, NE, Suite 510, Washington, DC 20002\nTel: 202-408-1080\nFax: 202-408-1056\[email protected]\nhttp://www.cbpp.org\nCurrently, owners that take project-based certificates are required to accept any\nextensions of the initial contract term offered by a PHA. This requirement would be\neliminated, but PHAs would be permitted to enter into contracts that contained such a\nprovision with consenting owners. In addition, the requirement that HUD must approve a\nPHA decision to extend a contract with an owner would be eliminated.\nIn the project-based contract with the owner, a PHA sets the rent for each assisted unit.\nUnder this proposal, rents for units with project-based vouchers may differ from the\npayment\nstandard[s]\nestablishe\nby\nh\nPHA, but are subject to the same \"rent\nreasonableness\" test that applies in 11\noucher program. The maximum rent\nwould be same as the maximum vous\npay nent standard: i.e., 110% of the HUD-\ndetermined fair market rent (FMR), or any higher exception payment standard approved\nby HUD.\nTo ensure that the vouchers could be used in tax credit units, special rules would apply if\nthe vouchers were project-based in tax credit developments; in this case, the maximum\ncontract rent would be the rent charged for comparable units in the development with tax\ncredit subsidies but without additional rental assistance. Rent adjustments during the\ncourse of the contract would be permitted, but would be subject to the same maximum\nlimits described above. The proposal does not change the current statutory requirement\nthat families with project-based VO chen would pay 30 percent of their adjusted income\nfor rent (subject to the usual exce ions)\nPHAs would be authorized to use SI\nerences or criteria for selecting families to\nreceive project-based assistance (e.g., to be consistent with a supportive housing\nprogram). Tenant-based voucher eligibility and targeting rules would apply. Owners\nwould be responsible for selecting tenants for units assisted with project-based vouchers\nfrom among the families referred by the PHA from the PHA's tenant-based waiting list.\nNo family would be required to accept project-based assistance; families that reject an\noffer of project-based assistance would retain their place on the waiting list. A PHA\nwould be permitted to use a separate waiting list for a project-based voucher program if\nall applicants for project-based units are also listed on the PHA's regular tenant-based\nvoucher waiting list, and if all families on the regular list that meet any special criteria for\nadmission to the project-based units are given the option to have their names placed on\nboth lists. (The use of a single waiting list or separate lists with required cross-listing\nmaximizes the choices of families and a mimizes the need to prepare multiple\napplications. It also makes it substantially less likely that families will use project-based\nwaiting lists as an end-run around the tenant-based waiting list.)\nIn their discretion, PHAs could decide, as an incentive for owners to enter into project-\nbased contracts, to offer vacancy payments to owners for up to 60 days. However, PHAs\n8/29/00\n3\nand owners must seek to reduce the need for vacancy payments and such payments may\nnot be made if the vacancy is the fault of the owner (e.g., the unit does not pass\nreinspection or a PHA refers a reasonable number of families to the owner, but the owner\nrefuses to select any of them.) Any such vacancy payments would be made out of regular\nvoucher funding (rather than administrative fees). A PHA also would have discretion to\nreduce the number of units under a project-based voucher contract if no family accepted a\nunit within 120 days of the notice of vacancy, and reissue the subsidy as a tenant-based\nvoucher.\nSubparagraph (H) authorizes a revised version of the Housing Production Voucher (HPV)\nprogram and the one-time grants as\nby the Administration in Section 217 of the\nFY 2001 HUD budget. If funded, thi program would provide vouchers to interested\nstate housing credit agencies that would used to help make a modest portion of low-\nincome housing tax credit developments (and \"risk sharing\" developments) affordable to\nfamilies with incomes below 30 percent of the area median income. The state agencies\nwould be free to choose which developments would receive the vouchers, SO long as the\nnumber of vouchers assigned to any particular development did not exceed 25 percent of\nthe total number of units.\nUnder the Administration's original proposal, families that received the vouchers would\nhave the option of leaving after one year ai taking their vouchers with them. In the\nrevised version authorized in the at\nn\nprosal, by contrast, the vouchers would be\nproject-based, ensuring owners\nsecur\nidy stream. To ensure maximum tenant\nmobility, however, assisted familie\nve a Continued Assistance Option. This\nwould allow families to move and\nkeep\nassistance if, for example, they needed to\nmove to be closer to a new job.\nOther changes from the Administration's proposal are as follows:\nTo simplify administration, the HPV vouchers would work the same way as\nordinary project-based vouchers. The primary difference would be the manner of\ninitial distribution of the vouchers. (In addition, as noted above, all families with\nHPV vouchers would have a Continued Assistance Option.)\nVouchers would be allocate\nunder the usual fair share formula used for\nvoucher assistance rathel Chan under the tax credit formula. This would better\ntarget scarce resources to areas with greater need for affordable housing by very\nlow- income renters. Any vouchers the state tax credit agency did not designate\nfor use would be reallocated to other states.\nA standard is included to guide states' selection of PHAs to administer the\nvouchers. Under this standard, states should select the PHA with jurisdiction over\n8/29/00\n4\nthe area in which the development will be located that is most effectively\nadministering its current tenant-based program and seeking to affirmatively\nfurther fair housing. The Administration's proposal did not provide any guidance\non this issue.\nThe Administration's proposal would have authorized use of the vouchers as\nregular tenant-based assistance in the interim before the new units are ready for\noccupancy. The revised HPV proposal neither authorizes nor restricts the use of\nthe vouchers in this manner, leaving the issue to be resolved in annual\nappropriations bills.\nThe provision that the your\nnot be considered in financing decisions is\ndeleted.\n(Since\nthe\nvoucher.\n11\ncolfer a steady subsidy stream to owners, they\nmay be relevant to the financing decisions of lenders and state housing finance\nagencies.)\nProject-based vouchers under the HPV program would not count in assessing\nPHA compliance with the limitation that no more than 15 percent of the PHA's\nvouchers may be project-based.\nTo be consistent with the tax credit rogram, a project-based contract under the\nHPV program could have\ninitial term of 15 years, as determined by\nthe PHA. (Under the Adr\nS proposal, by contrast, there was no\ncontract to project-base to\nd thus no contract term. Although the\nAdministration's proposal WOL required an owner to allow a family with\nan HPV voucher to remain in a unit for up to 15 years, it would have allowed the\nfamily to move and take its voucher after one year.)\nA project-based contract under the HPV program for tax credit-assisted units\ncould have a maximum rent up to the tax credit rent charged for comparable units\nin the development that do not have additional rental assistance. For the non-tax\ncredit units insured under the risk-sharing program, the rent rules discussed above\nfor the regular project-based voucher program would apply.\nThe regular definition low-income family\" under the 1937 Housing\nAct would apply to the APV (The Administration's proposal had made\nsome modifications to this d\n)\nAll of the changes made by this amendment would be effective upon enactment; there\nwould be no need to wait for HUD's promulgation of regulations. Making the statutory changes\nself-executing is important to enable PHAs to use their authority to project-base assistance when\nthey receive the FY 2000 \"fair share\" increments, as well as for turnover voucher funding. Few\n8/29/00\n5\nPHAs are able to project-base vouchers under the current regulations because they require that\nPHAs have existing contract authority to support the duration of any project-based contract.\nThey are also unduly cumbersome.\n8/29/00\n6\nProposed Amendment to the Project-based Voucher Provision of the U.S. Housing Act\n(a) Paragraph 13 of Section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o))\nis amended to read as follows:\n\"(13) PHA PROJECT-BASED ASSISTANCE.-\n(A) IN GENERAL.-If the Secretary enters into an annual contributions contract under this\nsubsection with a public housing agency pursuan. to which the public housing agency will enter\ninto a housing assistance payment contract W espect to an existing structure under this\nsubsection-\n(i) the public housing agency may approve\nassistance payment contract for such\nstructures (which may include newly constructed or rehabilitated structures as well as existing\nstructures) for not more than 15 percent of the funding available for tenant-based assistance\nadministered by the public housing agency under this section if the approval is consistent with\nthe housing needs and means to address those needs stated in the agency's annual plan pursuant\nto section 5A (d); and\n(ii) the public housing agency may provide any eligible family occupying a unit with project-\nbased assistance pursuant to this paragraph with a Continued Assistance Option. Families with a\nContinued Assistance Option have priority to receive a tenant-based voucher from the agency\nupon\nreasonable\nnotice\nof\nthe\nfamily's\ndesire\nmove from the structure after an initial year in\noccupancy, notwithstanding the agency's war\nor any system of local preferences\nestablished by the agency pursuant to para\n(6)\nThe agency's annual plan pursuant to\nsection 5A (d) shall specify whether the\nwill provide project-based assistance in this\nmanner. The transfer of a family from proje\nsed to tenant-based voucher assistance pursuant\nto this provision shall be considered a continua\nof assistance, and is subject to the Secretary's\nregulations concerning the termination of voucher assistance.\n(iii) Except when units assisted under this paragraph are intended to be occupied primarily by\nelderly or disabled families, the approval of a housing assistance payment contract under this\nparagraph must be consistent with the goal of deconcentrating poverty and expanding housing\nand economic opportunities. This objective may be met by attaching assistance to a dwelling\nunit located in a low-poverty area or in an area of high job growth or by attaching assistance to\nfewer than half of the dwelling units in a development that is not in a low-poverty or high job\ngrowth area. The Secretary may by regulation define what constitutes a \"low-poverty\" and a\n\"high job growth\" area.\n(B) CONTRACT TERM. - In the case of a housing assistance payment contract that applies to\na structure under this paragraph, a public housing agency may enter into a contract with an owner\nfor a term of up to ten years, subject to the availability of sufficient appropriated funds for the\npurpose of renewing expiring contracts for assistance payments, as provided in appropriations\nActs and in the agency's annual contributions contract with the Secretary and to annual\ncompliance with the inspection requirements of paragraph (8), except that the agency need not\nmake annual inspection of each assisted unit in a development. The public housing agency may\nAug. 29, 2000, page 1\nenter into a contract that specifies additional conditions for the continuation of any contract under\nthis paragraph. If the units are owned by the public housing agency, the term of the contract\nshall be agreed upon by the public housing agency and the unit of general local government or\nother entity approved by the Secretary in the manner provided by paragraph (11).\n(C) EXTENSION OF CONTRACT TERM.-In the case of a housing assistance payment\ncontract that applies to a structure under this paragraph, a public housing agency may enter into a\ncontract with the owner, contingent upon the future availability of appropriated funds for the pur-\npose of renewing expiring contracts for assis\npayments, as provided in appropriations Acts,\nto extend the term of the underlying hous\nшсе payment contract for such period as the\npublic housing agency determines to\n:\ntc achieve long-term affordability of the\nhousing or to expand housing opportunitie\nMedomiract may obligate the owner to have such\nextensions of the underlying housing assistance payment contract accepted by the owner and the\nsuccessors in interest of the owner.\n(D) RENT CALCULATION.-For project-based assistance under this paragraph, housing\nassistance payment contracts shall establish rents for each assisted unit up to 110 percent of the\napplicable fair market rental (or any exception payment standard approved by the Secretary\npursuant to paragraph (1)(D) of this subsection), except that if a contract is for a unit that has\nbeen allocated low-income housing tax credits pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 42 (other than a contract\npursuant to subparagraph (H) below) and is located in a qualified census tract, the rent for\nthat unit may be set at any level that does\nthe rent charged for comparable units in the\nbuilding that also receive low-income ho\nbut do not have additional rental\nassistance. The rents established by housing\nstance payment contracts attached to a structure\nmay vary from the payment standard[s] esta\n-d by the public housing agency pursuant to\nparagraph (1)(B) and are subject to paragraph (10)(A) of this subsection.\n(E) ADJUSTED RENTS.-With respect to rents adjusted under this paragraph-\n(i) the adjusted rent for any unit shall be reasonable in comparison with rents charged for\ncomparable dwelling units in the private, unassisted, local market and may not exceed the\nmaximum rent permissible under (D) above; and (ii) the provisions of subsection (c)(2)(C) shall\nnot apply.\n(F) TENANT SELECTION. - A public housing agency shall select families to receive project-\nbased assistance pursuant to this paragraph from its waiting list for assistance under subsection\n(o). The eligibility of families for initial receipt of assistance under this paragraph is subject to\nparagraph (4) of this subsection and section 16(b). The agency may establish preferences or\ncriteria for selection for a unit assisted under this paragraph that are consistent with the needs\nidentified in the agency's annual plan. Any family that rejects an offer of project-based\nassistance under this paragraph, or that is rejected for admission by the owner or manager of a\nstructure with project-based assistance under this paragraph, retains its place on the waiting list\nas if the offer had not been made. Owners or managers of structures with project-based\nassistance under this paragraph shall not admit any family to a unit subject to a housing\nAug. 29, 2000, page 2\nassistance payment contract under this paragraph other than a family referred by the public\nhousing agency from its waiting list. Consistent with its waiting list policies and selection\npreferences, the public housing agency may place families referred by the structure's owner or\nmanager on its waiting list and may maintain a separate waiting list for assistance under this\nparagraph, provided that-\n(i) all families on the waiting list for assistance under subsection (o) are permitted to place their\nnames on the separate list; and (ii) all families on the separate list are included on the waiting list\nfor assistance under subsection (o).\n(G) VACATED UNITS. - Notwithstan\naph (9) of this subsection, a public housing\nagency's housing assistance payment\nOm\nowner under this paragraph may authorize\nthe agency in its discretion to pay the rent of\nseated unit from funds available under the\nagency's annual contributions contract with 1 ecietary for a reasonable period not to exceed\n60 days where the vacancy is not due to any fault of the owner. The contract must obligate both\nthe public housing agency and the owner to take every reasonable step to minimize the likelihood\nand extent of any such vacancy. A public housing agency's housing assistance payment contract\nwith an owner under this paragraph may provide that if no eligible family has agreed to rent a\nvacated unit within 120 days after the owner has notified the public housing agency of the\nvacancy despite the reasonable efforts of the agency and the owner to refer eligible families and\nrent the unit, the public housing agency may reduce its contract with the owner by the amount\nequivalent to the remaining months of subsidy for the vacated unit. Funds deobligated pursuant\nto such a provision shall be made available 1\nagency to provide assistance under this\nsubsection. Eligible applicants for assist\nthis subsection may enforce the provisions of\nthis subparagraph.\n(H) HOUSING PRODUCTION ASSIST ANCE. ----- (i) There is authorized to be appropriated, in\naddition to assistance otherwise available under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of\n1937, such amounts as may be provided in appropriations acts to provide additional housing\nvouchers pursuant to this provision under such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines\nand to provide one-time grants to developers who produce housing units that satisfy such unmet\nneeds as the Secretary may identify, such as a need for an increase in units to house large\nfamilies. Such vouchers shall be for extremely low-income families.\n(ii) HUD ALLOCATION OF VOUCHERS.- The Secretary shall allocate the vouchers\ndescribed in subparagraph (i) to States pursuant to the formula established under section 213(d)\nof the Housing and Community Developm: Act of 1974 except that subsection 213(d)(1)(C)\nshall not apply to such allocation. The Sec. Stary may reallocate any vouchers that a State housing\ncredit agency does not designate for use at a particular building within the twelve months\nsubsequent to the Secretary's initial allocation pursuant to subparagraph (iii) in the same manner\nas low-income housing tax credits pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 42 are reallocated.\n(iii) DISTRIBUTION OF VOUCHERS.\n(I) The housing credit agency shall select the buildings or housing at which the vouchers made\navailable for each State under subparagraph (ii) shall be used. Such buildings or housing may\ninclude-\nAug. 29, 2000, page 3\n(A) new buildings with a mortgage insured under section 221(d)(4) of the National Housing Act\nwhich is allocated a housing credit dollar amount pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 42 and is not\nlocated in a qualified census tract; and\n(B) new multifamily housing with a mortgage insured under section 542(c) of the Housing and\nCommunity Development Act of 1992 which may or may not be allocated a housing credit\ndollar amount pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 42 and is not located in a qualified census tract.\n(II) The housing credit agency shall determine the number of vouchers the Secretary shall\ndistribute for use at the buildings or housing selected under paragraph (1), but in no case shall\nsuch number be more than 25 percent of the total number of units in the building or housing.\n(III) The housing credit agency shall selo\nhousing agency to administer these vouchers,\nsubject to paragraph (IV). The housi\nshall select the public housing agency with\njurisdiction over the area in which the\ntailing\nultifamily housing is located that administers\ntenant-based assistance under section 8 of the Unite States Housing Act of 1937 most\neffectively and in a manner best designed to affirmatively further fair housing. The Secretary\nmay promulgate standards that the housing credit agency shall follow in making its selection.\n(IV) The Secretary shall decline to make the requested vouchers available to any public housing\nagency that-\n(A)(i) the Secretary determines is not administering tenant-based assistance under section 8 of\nthe United States Housing Act of 1937 in a satisfactory manner; and\n(ii) has not proposed an alternative administrator of vouchers under this section satisfactory to\nthe Secretary;\n(B) does not comply with title VI of the Civil\nAct of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, section\n504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or title\ne Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,\nor other applicable civil rights laws; O.\n(C) is otherwise determined by the Secretary\nbe heligible for receipt of such vouchers.\n(iv) PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY ALLOC OF VOUCHERS.-The public housing\nagency receiving housing vouchers under subparagraph (H) shall make the vouchers available for\nuse in accordance with subparagraph (H) (v) to extremely low-income households that agree to\nmove into the buildings or multifamily housing selected by the housing credit agency under\nsubparagraph (H)(iii)(I).\n(v) USE RESTRICTIONS.-The vouchers allocated pursuant to subparagraph (H) shall be\nadministered in accordance with the provisions of section 8(o)(13) of the United States Housing\nAct of 1937, except that-\n(I) public housing agencies administering these vouchers shall initially make these vouchers\navailable to extremely low-income households that agree to move into buildings or housing\nselected by a housing credit agency pursua to subparagraph (H)(iii)(I);\n(II) the public housing agency's contract to provide project-based assistance pursuant to\nsubparagraph (H) shall not be considered in determining the agency's compliance with the\nlimitation of subparagraph (A)(i);\n(III) the public housing agency must ensure that each family assisted with a voucher issued\npursuant to subparagraph (H) has a Continued Assistance Option in accordance with\nsubparagraph (A)(ii) and must provide a tenant-based voucher from its existing allocation within\n60 days of request to an otherwise eligible family wishing to move from the structure to which\nAug. 29, 2000, page 4\nthe assistance has been attached at any time after the initial 12 months in occupancy;\n(IV) the initial term of the contract to provide project-based housing assistance payments shall be\n15 years; and\n(V) the public housing agency, without the approval of the Secretary, may set the rent for each\nsize of dwelling unit up to the rents charged for comparable units in the selected building or\nmulti-family housing that have been allocated low-income housing tax credits pursuant to 26\nU.S.C. 42 but do not have additional rental assistance. If the units are not allocated a housing\ncredit dollar amount pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 42, the rents shall be set pursuant to subparagraphs\n(D) and (E).\n(vi) FUNDING.-In addition to any amount\ndated for this purpose for fiscal year 2001,\nthere are hereby authorized to be appropti:\nsumms as may be necessary in ensuing years to\ncarry out this subparagraph. Any amounts apr or ted shall remain available until expended.\"\n(b) APPLICABILITY - This section shall take effect on, and the amendments made by this\nsection are made on, and shall apply beginning upon, the date of the enactment of this Act, and\nshall supercede the regulations promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (d) of\nsection 8 of the Housing Act of 1937 prior to the date of the enactment of this Act.\nAug. 29, 2000, page 5\n(G) VACATED UNITS. - Notwithstanding paragraph (9) of this subsection, a public housing\nagency's housing assistance payment contract with an owner under this paragraph may authorize\nthe agency in its discretion to pay the rent of a vacated unit from funds available under the\nagency's annual contributions contract with the Secretary for a reasonable period not to exceed\n60 days where the vacancy is not due to any fault of the owner. The contract must obligate both\nthe public housing agency and the owner to take every reasonable step to minimize the likelihood\nand extent of any such vacancy. A public housing agency's housing assistance payment contract\nwith an owner under this paragraph may provide that if no eligible family has agreed to rent a\nvacated unit within 120 days after the owner has notified the public housing agency of the\nvacancy despite the reasonable efforts of the\nand the owner to refer eligible families and\nrent the unit, the public housing agency\nits\ncontract with the owner by the amount\nequivalent to the remaining months of subsi the 1 acated unit. Funds deobligated pursuant\nto such a provision shall be made available by the agency to provide assistance under this\nsubsection. Eligible applicants for assistance under this subsection may enforce the provisions\nof this subparagraph.\nDraft 8/29/00\nSteve's memo is generally supportive of revising the Administration's Housing\nProduction Voucher proposal to link vouchers with tax credit units and of amending the\ncurrent statutory authority under which PHAs may project-base up to 15 percent of\ntheir vouchers to improve the program and to enable it to operate in a similar manner\nto the HPV program at the field level. In our conversation yesterday, Steve suggested\nthat I draft a response to the concerns and share it with you. So I am. I will be out on\nThursday and Friday this week. If you want to discuss this issue before Monday (since\nI will be out of the country - and pretty unreachable), I'd suggest giving Barbara Sard a\ncall. I've discussed OMB's concerns with her and she helped me write this note. I'm\nsending this to you before I go in case it becomes relevant somehow while I'm gone\nand so we can reach a decision on this issue soon, whatever happens. (Please\nremember that I wrote this after midnight if you note grammar, spelling or other errors.\nI really wanted to send it to you before I left....)\nSteve, Jim and Lauren suggested that the proposal be revised in four respects. I\nrespond to each of the recommendations below. It may help for all of us to talk with\nBarbara together.\n1. Cap the percentage of units in any one property that can be covered by a project-\nbasing contract to 25 percent of units in all cases, not just for the HPV component.\nCurrently the statute allows\nproject-base vouchers in 100\npercent of the units in a development Barbara's proposal limits PHAs' current\nauthority by capping the percentage of units that may be project-based (that are not\nintended primarily for elderly and disabled persons) at 50 percent outside of \"low-\npoverty\" or \"high job growth\" areas. As a political matter, it may be far easier to set a\nlimit on the use of new vouchers than to impose a new limit on the project-basing of\nexisting vouchers.\nThe rationale for a 25 percent limit in the HPV component is not directly\napplicable to PHAs' regular stock of vouchers. In an HPV development, all of the\nhouseholds that receive the newly-funded incremental vouchers must have extremely\nlow incomes (at or below 30 percent of area median) and are intended to be large\nfamilies with children. Under the regular statutory provision, any type of household\nmay be assisted, and new program partic pants may have incomes up to 50 percent of\narea median (and in some cases, 80 percent). Due to the differences in the populations\nserved, the risks from concentration of voucher households in a building may not be\ngreat. On the other hand, under regular project-basing, PHAs are not required to give\nfamilies the option to move with tenant-based assistance (what the proposal calls the\n\"Continued Assistance Option\").\nOn balance, I suggest that the proposal be modified as OMB has suggested, with\nan important exception: that a PHA could project-base vouchers in more than 25\npercent of the units in a development (other than an HPV development) if the PHA\nagrees to provide the families in the project-based voucher units with a Continued\nAssistance Option and enters into a contract with the owner that reduces the project-\nbased subsidies when families decline to accept the unit. This compromise suggestion\nsubstantially meets Steve's concern, because no owner could be assured of continuing\nsubsidy: if a family chooses to move, and a new family does not accept the subsidized\nunit within 120 days, the owner's contract is reduced and the subsidy is issued to the\nnext family on the tenant-based waiting list. In addition, it has the important\nadvantage of creating an incentive for PHAs to offer families the Continued Assistance\nOption despite its added administrative burden.\n2. Restrict the term of an initial contract to five years.\nI think a longer term contract option is important to meet the goals of project-\nbasing. Barbara's proposal would permit a project-based contract in an HPV\ndevelopment to have an initial term up to 15 years. The Administration's sec. 217\nproposal also obligated an owner to renew the tenant's lease for 15 years.\nFor regular statutory project-basing, Barbara has proposed a maximum initial\ncontract duration of 10 years, but PHAs have the option to enter into shorter\ncontracts. Her proposal also eliminates the current statutory requirement\nthat if the PHA offers an owner an extension of the contract term the owner\nmust agree. The latter change makes it more important that the initial contract\nduration be permitted to be longer.\nThe optimum duration of a project-based contract (subject of course to annual\nappropriations) depends on the purpose of project-basing and the local market. If\nproject-basing is part of a plan to develop or renovate a building, it may be\nappropriate or even necessary for the contract to be of longer duration if it is\nto have any financial advantage to the developer, and if the community is to\nreceive a fair return on other public investment (e.g., CDBG, HOME) that may\nhave been used in the development.\nIf project-basing is used as a tool to enhance voucher utilization, a PHA would\nhave to assess the local market. The current unprecedented duration of prosperity\nindicates that a 5-year contract may not be sufficient for tenant security in a rising\nmarket. Yet, a PHA would have the flexibility to enter into a shorter contract if\nnecessary to secure the cooperation of desirable owners.\nIn addition, unlike the old project-based programs, units under a\nproject-based voucher contract would be subject to annual inspections, and\nthe contract could be reduced if referred families do not want the unit.\nFinally, the project-based contracts would be administered by a local entity that would\npresumably have to be more responsive than a federal bureaucracy to the local\ncommunity if there are concerns. It really doesn't trouble me to have a lender take a\nvoucher contract into consideration when the owner risks losing the contract for poor\nmanagement, etc.\n3. Restrict rents to the local payment standard for other vouchers and use the project-\nbased Section 8 market comparability test.\nI think there are good policy reasons to permit a higher payment standard and\ndon't understand the preference for the market comparability test. The Administration's\nsec. 217 proposal recognized that in tax credit developments it was appropriate to allow\na higher payment standard than the PHA otherwise used in its voucher program if the\nrent the owner would normally receive under the tax credit program was higher than\nthe payment standard and was reasonable based on a market comparison. Barbara's\nproposal retains that concept for the HPV component and adds it to regular statutory\nproject-basing for developments that are not in poor neighborhoods.\nFor other developments that do not receive low income housing tax credits,\nBarbara's proposal permits the rent of a unit assisted with a project-based voucher to\nbe up to 110 percent of the Fair Market Rent, even if the PHA has not otherwise set its\npayment standard that high, but only if the rent for the unit meets the statutory\nrent reasonableness test. In light of this cap, I don't understand the concern about\nnon-competitive, above-market deals. The bad old days of deals at 140 - 160 percent\nof FMR could not possibly occur. Giving PHAs the flexibility to set rents somewhat\nabove the payment standard is one of the few incentives to bring existing owners into\nthe program in tight or rising markets.\n[A higher payment standard may be the only way to enable the rent for a unit\nwith a project-based voucher to be the same as the rent for a unit in which a family\nuses a tenant-based voucher. For example, assume the FMR for a 2-bedroom unit is\n$737/month, and an owner usually rents the units in his building for $810 per month. If\nthe PHA sets its voucher payment standard at $737/month - 100 percent of FMR -\nthe owner presumably would refuse to accept a project-based voucher contract that\nlimits the rent to the payment standard. If the owner agreed to rent a unit to a family\nwith a tenant-based voucher, however, the PHA would be likely to find the rent to be\nreasonable as all the comparable units in the building rent for $810 or more. The\nowner would receive the same rent for the unit as s/he does for units without voucher\nassistance, but the family would contribute $73 more of the rent rather than the PHA.\n(In the tenant-based program, a family pays the difference between the rent and the\npayment standard in addition to 30 percent of its income.) Unlike a tenant-based\nvoucher, in the case of a project-based voucher a family is limited to paying 30 percent\nof its income for rent, so the payment standard is the maximum rent.]\nFinally, I'm not sure I understand why Steve prefers the project-based Section 8\nmarket comparability test. It seems preferable to use the Section 8 rent\nreasonableness used in the tenant-based program, and if there are weaknesses in that\ntest to strengthen it. Particularly if only a portion of the units in a development receive\nproject-based voucher assistance, it is relatively easy to do a \"market\" test of\ncomparable or reasonable rents.\n4. Restrict the payment for vacant units to 30 days with an option for the PHA to\nextend an additional 30 days only if the PHA has failed to refer sufficient potential\ntenants.\nI'd rather leave the proposal as Barbara drafted it. We should strive to\nencourage quick replacement of departing voucher holders. The proposal does SO by\nrequiring that any owner/PHA contract that provides for vacancy payments must require\neach party to take \"every reasonable step to minimize the likelihood and extent of any\nsuch vacancy.\"\nAs a practical matter, 30 days is too short to cover an owner's likely vacancy risk\nunder the program. If the departing tenant hasn't given much notice, it could take\nseveral weeks just for the PHA to screen the next willing family on its list, have the\ntenant see the apartment, and even if the tenant and owner agree, the tenant may\nhave to give notice on the family's current unit before moving in. In contrast, an\nowner not bound by a project-based contract can rent to a willing family as soon as\ns/he knows of an upcoming vacancy, and require the family to pay rent whether or not\nit occupies the unit immediately. Providing two months of vacancy payments levels the\nplaying field so that an owner doesn't take a loss for participating in the program. In\nany case the vacancy payments can be paid for up to 60 days - - the length of\ntime/amount of the payment is a PHA option.\nRecord Type: Record\nTo:\nMichael Deich/OMB/EOP@EOP\nCC:\nSee the distribution list at the bottom of this message\nSubject: Barbara Sard's \"Project Basing\" Legislative Proposal\nYou asked for reactions to the latest version of Barbara's proposal. Jim, Lauren\nBloomquist, and I have looked at it and offer the following comments:\nIf enacted, it would make PHAs' existing discretion to project-base up to 15 percent of\ntheir housing vouchers (up to 250,000 units nationally) more flexible and easier to use,\nespecially to foster rehabilitation and new construction. It also would authorize a new\nFrancis S. Redburn\n09/07/2000\n03:11:21 PM\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nMichael Deich/OMB/EOP@EOP\nCC:\nSee the distribution list at the bottom of this message\nSubject: Barbara Sard's \"Project Basing\" Legislative Proposal\nYou asked for reactions to the latest version Oi Barbara's proposal. Jim, Lauren Bloomquist, and I have\nlooked at it and offer the following comments:\nIf enacted, it would make PHAs' existing discre to project-base up to 15 percent of their housing\nvouchers (up to 250,000 units nationally) more fiexible and easier to use, especially to foster rehabilitation\nand new construction. It also would authorize a new category of \"housing production vouchers\" (HPVs)\nfor extremely low-income families, plus a one-time grant to the developer, to be used for up to 25 percent\nof units constructed with support of the Low-income Housing Tax Credit or FHA's \"risk-sharing\" mortgage\ninsurance program. The latter is similar to the 2001 Budget proposal for 10,000 vouchers to be used in\nTax Credit and certain FHA-insured projects.\nIn both cases, voucher holders moving into project-based units would have the option to reject the unit\nwithout losing their place in line for voucher assistance and could move elsewhere with the voucher after\nthe one-year initial lease period. The project owner would be guaranteed a replacement voucher holder\nfor the term of the contract -- up to ten years initially for the regular program and up to 15 years for HPVs.\nLikely Effects\nWe believe that, by making it more attractive and easier for PHAs to project-base vouchers and by giving\nlandlords incentives to sign long-term (10 or 15 year) assistance contracts (subject to annual\nappropriations and willingness of voucher holders to live there), the proposal will result in project-basing\nmany vouchers. Incentives include the ability to set a higher payment standard than for other vouchers\nand to pay owners for up to 60 days for vacancies when they occur.\nIn locations where landlord participation in the voucher program has been a problem, the long-term\ncommitment to accept voucher holders could increase landlord participation and help sustain success\nrates when markets are tight and rents rise. Rents would be capped by a maximum payment standard\njust as they are for other voucher holders, but may differ from (exceed) the payment standard that a PHA\napplies to its other vouchers.\nThe proposal also could serve as an inducement for development of additional affordable housing. This is\nclearly the case for the HPV component. However, a PHA could also offer a developer a commitment to\nproject-base vouchers for up to 100 percent of the nits (up to 50 percent in a high-poverty neighborhood)\nin a new or rehabbed property initially for up 10 y 3 but with the commitment extendible at the PHA's\noption, thereby increasing supply. We therefore expe. St me PHAs to use project-basing of their existing\nvouchers (as opposed to HPV vouchers if available) to induce the construction or rehabilitation of new\nsubsidized housing.\nOur Concerns\nWe believe that the proposal as drafted preserves voucher holder choice, which is critical both to\nmaximizing the benefits of the voucher to the recipient and to providing an incentive for good operation of\na project. However, to the extent that PHAs use this option, it results in voucher holders having to reside\nin a project for one year before they are eligible to move. Thus, there is some reduction in voucher\nbenefits resulting from mobility and choice.\nWe note that project-basing of units is likely to concentrate voucher holders in fewer properties, but this\neffect is minimized as long as project-basing in each PHA remains capped at 15 percent of the vouchers.\nWe note that the incentive for good operation is considerably weakened by the commitment to replace\ndeparting voucher holders and by the payments for vacant units. The latter also works against the goal of\nincreasing voucher utilization and reduces the number of voucher holders aided at a given level of\nappropriations.\nOur greatest concern is that PHAs will use project-basing to create new 100 percent subsidized projects\nat rents that are not based on the market and are Higher than those set for other voucher holders. We see\nin this at least the potential for collusive ai rangements between PHAs and developers that would conflict\nwith the interests of tenants and ultimately damage the program's reputation through a subsequent\nscandal.\nWe also are concerned that Barbara's carefully crafted proposal could be readily modified on the Hill,\neither initially or over time, to favor the interests of developers over those of program recipients. If PHAs\nand development interests find project-basing attractive, they may try over time to raise the percentage\ncap; and, if they find the voucher holder's option to move creates cash flow problems for these properties,\nthey may attempt to restrict their option to leave a bad property.\nAt a minimum, we would recommend the following changes to the proposal, in priority order:\n1. Restrict the term of assistance contracts with owners to the existing five years rather than the\nproposed 10 years (with renewal at PHA option) or 15 years (for HPVs). If the goal is to address a\ncyclical problem of tight market conditions, then live years is sufficient. We also think that owners of\nmore and better properties, in a greater range of locations, would be more interested if they are not\nlocked in for such a long period. In fact, we wonder about the motives of owners/developers who\nwould enter into such a long-term deal with a one sided renewal option. For the Government, a\nshorter contract period reduces the risks associated with long-term entanglements with particular\nproperties and owners.\n2. Cap the percentage of units in any one property that can be covered by a project-basing contract to\n25 percent of the units in all cases, not just for the HPV component. This reduces the risk of\nconcentration and of creating projects that are developed primarily because the PHA has ensured\ncontinued cash flow to the project from subsidy holders and not because the developer thinks the\nproperty can be supported over a long period by the market.\n3. Restrict rents to the local payment standard for other vouchers and consider applying the\nproject-based comparability test now in statute for other project-based Section 8 subsidies or another\nmarket test to limit rents. This reduces the risk of subsidizing properties in excess of their market\nvalue and of non-competitive, above-market deals between PHAs and developers.\n4. Restrict the payment for vacant units to 30 days, with an option for the PHA to extend for another 30\ndays only if it has failed to deliver an accceptal le number of voucher holders in that time period. This\nminimizes the reduction in voucher utilization a encourages quick replacement of departing voucher\nholders.\nMessage Copied To:\n9.20.00.\n$206\nvouchers shied\n@\n$1000\nH\nMichael proposes\nproject-basing\n1\nCAO forall?\n2 <100% funits\nmome mixing\n3\nvacancy payments\nI\n25%\nunless CAO offered to tenants\n2 termof contract\n5 years 10 YRS T 10 yrs.\nHQStels\nifnot repaired, the check stop\n708-0614-1573 NestoR\n60 days at 80%\nMargy Waller\n09/19/2000 02:19:33 PM\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nFrancis S. Redburn/OMB/EOP@EOP, Michae! Deich/OMB/EOP\nCC:\nAndrea Kane/OPD/EOP\nSubject: Re: Bond vs. Voucher\nThe argument that seems to be missing on Steve's one pager is that the voucher program has a\nproduction strategy because of the project basing concept. Particularly if we can reach agreement about\nhow to fix project-basing, it would seem to strengthen our hand on beating a pure production proposal. In\nfact, fixing project-basing may be necessary for the long term viability of Section 8 vouchers and choice\ngiven the fact of the Bond proposal and other indications that the argument is \"vouchers don't work\".\nBarbara Sard <[email protected]>\n09/14/2000 10:01:01 AM\nRecord Type: Record\nTo:\nMargy Waller/OPD/EOP\nCC:\nSubject: Re: memo\nMargy: I know you won't get this until Monday, which is fine. I have no\nproblems with the memo at all -- substantively I see no changes, and you\nimproved the articulation of a few points. I didn't realize you needed to\nget it done last night. I hope it wasn't only this that kept you there so\nlate.\nI'll be in DC on Monday. I have a bunch of meetings in the AM. Probably\nbest to reach me on my cell phone, 617-686-1819\nHope you got some rest and that the tript to Ireland was for fun!\n-----\nOriginal Message\nFrom: <[email protected]>\nTo: \"Barbara Sard\" <[email protected]>\nSent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 1:13 AM\nSubject: memo\n> Barbara:\n>\n> Here is what I sent to Michael, et al. I'm sorry we couldn't talk before\nI\n> went it - but in the end I decided that it was more important to keep the\n> process moving than to have a perfect memo. I received your note at\nalmost\n> 11 - so, I decided not to call.\n>\n> If you want to talk tomorrow - I should be pageable for part of the day.\n> After that, I'm in Ireland till Sunday. Wish I had the energy to explain\n> why I wrote and cut as I did, but I'm very tired - and I still haven't\n> packed\n>\n> Thanks.\n>\nV\n***\n>\nV\nV\nV\nSteve?s memo is generally supportive of revising the Administration?s\n> Housing Production Voucher proposal to link vouchers with tax credit units\n> and of amending the current statutory authority under which PHAs may\n> project-base up to 15 percent of their vouchers to improve the program and\n> to enable it to operate in a similar manner to the HPV program at the\nfield\n> level. In our conversation yesterday, Steve suggested that I draft a\n> response to the concerns and share it with you. So I am. I will be out\non\n> Thursday and Friday this week. If you want to discuss this issue before\n> Monday (since I will be out of the country ? and pretty unreachable), I?d\n> suggest giving Barbara Sard a call. I?ve discussed OMB?s concerns with\nher\n> and she helped me write this note. I?m sending this to you before I go in\n> case it becomes relevant somehow while I?m gone and so we can reach a\n> decision on this issue soon, whatever happens. (Please remember that I\n> wrote this after midnight if there are errors, etc. i really wanted to\n> send it to you before I left....)\n>\n>\nSteve, Jim and Lauren suggested that the proposal be revised in four\n> respects. I respond to each of the recommendations below. It may help for\n> all of us to talk with Barbara together.\n>\n> 1. Cap the percentage of units in any one property that can be covered\nby\n> a project-basing contract to 25 percent of units in all cases, not just\nfor\n> the HPV component.\n>\n>\nCurrently the statute allows a PHA to project-base vouchers in 100\n> percent of the units in a development. Barbara?s proposal limits PHAs?\n> current authority by capping the percentage of units that may be\n> project-based (that are not intended primarily for eiderly and disabled\n> persons) at 50 percent outside of ?low-poverty? or ?high job growth?\n> areas. As a political matter, it may be far easier to set a limit on the\n> use of new vouchers than to impose a new limit on the project-basing of\n> existing vouchers.\n>\n>\nThe rationale for a 25 percent limit in the HPV component is not\n> directly applicable to PHAs? regular stock of vouchers. In an HPV\n> development, all of the households that receive the newly-funded\n> incremental vouchers must have extremely low incomes (at or below 30\n> percent of area median) and are intended to be large families with\n> children. Under the regular statutory provision, any type of household\nmay\n> be assisted, and new program participants may have incomes up to 50\npercent\n> of area median (and in some cases, 80 percent). Due to the differences in\n> the populations served, the risks from concentration of voucher households\n> in a building may not be great. On the other hand, under regular\n> project-basing, PHAs are not required to give families the option to move\n> with tenant-based assistance (what the proposal calls the ?Continued\n> Assistance Option?).\nV\n>\nOn balance, I suggest that the proposal be modified as OMB has\n> suggested, with an important exception: that a PHA could project-base\n> vouchers in more than 25 percent of the units in a development (other than\n> an HPV development) if the PHA agrees to provide the families in the\n> project-based voucher units with a Continued Assistance Option and enters\n> into a contract with the owner that reduces the project-based subsidies\n> when families decline to accept the unit. This compromise suggestion\n> substantially meets Steve's concern, because no owner could be assured of\n> continuing subsidy: if a family chooses to move, and a new family does not\n> accept the subsidized unit within 120 days, the owner?s contract is\nreduced\n> and the subsidy is issued to the next family on the tenant-based waiting\n> list. In addition, it has the important advantage of creating an\nincentive\n> for PHAs to offer families the Continued Assistance Option despite its\n> added administrative burden.\n>\n>\n> 2. Restrict the term of an initial contract to five years.\n>\n>\nI think a longer term contract option is important to meet the goals\n> of project-basing. Barbara?s proposal would permit a project-based\n> contract in an HPV development to have an initial term up to 15 years.\nThe\n> Administration?s sec. 217 proposal also obligated an owner to renew the\n> tenant?s lease for 15 years.\n>\n>\nFor regular statutory project-basing, Barbara has proposed a maximum\n> initial contract duration of 10 years, but PHAs have the option to enter\n> into shorter contracts. Her proposal also eliminates the current\nstatutory\n> requirement that if the PHA offers an owner an extension of the contract\n> term the owner must agree. The latter change makes it more important that\n> the initial contract duration be permitted to be longer.\n>\n>\nThe optimum duration of a project-based contract (subject of course\nto\n> annual appropriations) depends on the purpose of project-basing and the\n> local market. If project-basing is part of a plan to develop or renovate\na\n> building, it may be appropriate or even necessary for the contract to be\nof\n> longer duration if it is to have any financial advantage to the developer,\n> and if the community is to receive a fair return on other public\ninvestment\n> (e.g., CDBG, HOME) that may have been used in the development.\n>\n>\nIf project-basing is used as a tool to enhance voucher utilization, a\n> PHA would have to assess the local market. The current unprecedented\n> duration of prosperity indicates that a 5-year contract may not be\n> sufficient for tenant security in a rising market. Yet, a PHA would have\n> the flexibility to enter into a shorter contract if necessary to secure\nthe\n> cooperation of desirable owners.\n>\n>\nIn addition, unlike the old project-based programs, units under a\n> project-based voucher contract would be subject to annual inspections, and\n> the contract could be reduced if referred families do not want the unit.\n> Finally, the project-based contracts would be administered by a local\n> entity that would presumably have to be more responsive than a federal\n> bureaucracy to the local community if there are concerns. It really\n> doesn?t trouble me to have a lender take a voucher contract into\n> consideration when the owner risks losing the contract for poor\nmanagement,\n> etc.\n>\n> 3. Restrict rents to the local payment standard for other vouchers and\n> use the project-based Section 8 market comparability test.\n>\n>\nI think there are good policy reasons to permit a higher payment\n> standard and don?t understand the preference for the market comparability\n> test. The Administration?s sec. 217 proposal recognized that in tax\ncredit\n> developments it was appropriate to allow a higher payment standard than\nthe\n> PHA otherwise used in its voucher program if the ent the owner would\n> normally receive under the tax credit program was higher than the payment\n> standard and was reasonable based on a market comparison. Barbara?s\n> proposal retains that concept for the HPV component and adds it to regular\n> statutory project-basing for developments that are not in poor\n> neighborhoods.\n>\n>\nFor other developments that do not receive low income housing tax\n> credits, Barbara?s proposal permits the rent of a unit assisted with a\n> project-based voucher to be up to 110 percent or the Fair Market Rent,\neven\n> if the PHA has not otherwise set its payment standard that high, but only\n> if the rent for the unit meets the statutory rent reasonableness test. In\n> light of this cap, I don?t understand the concern about non-competitive,\n> above-market deals. The bad old days of deals at 140 - 160 percent of FMR\n> could not possibly occur. Giving PHAs the flexibility to set rents\n> somewhat above the payment standard is one of the few incentives to bring\n> existing owners into the program in tight or rising markets.\n>\n>\n[A higher payment standard may be the only way to enable the rent for\n> a unit with a project-based voucher to be the same as the rent for a unit\n> in which a family uses a tenant-based voucher. For example, assume the\nFMR\n> for a 2-bedroom unit is $737/month, and an owner usually rents the units\nin\n> his building for $810 per month. If the PHA sets its voucher payment\n> standard at $737/month ? 100 percent of FMR ? the owner presumably would\n> refuse to accept a project-based voucher contract that limits the rent to\n> the payment standard. If the owner agreed to rent a unit to a family with\n> a tenant-based voucher, however, the PHA would be likely to find the rent\n> to be reasonable as all the comparable units in the building rent for $810\n> or more. The owner would receive the same rent for the unit as s/he does\n> for units without voucher assistance, but the family would contribute $73\n> more of the rent rather than the PHA. (In the tenant based program, a\n> family pays the difference between the rent and the payment standard in\n> addition to 30 percent of its income.) Unlike a tenant-based voucher, in\n> the case of a project-based voucher a family is limited to paying 30\n> percent of its income for rent, so the payment standard is the maximum\n> rent.]\n>\n>\nFinally, I?m not sure I understand why Steve prefers the\nproject-based\n> Section 8 market comparability test. It seems preferable to use the\n> Section 8 rent reasonableness used in the tenant-based program, and if\n> there are weaknesses in that test to strengthen it. Particularly if only\na\n> portion of the units in a development receive project-based voucher\n> assistance, it is relatively easy to do a ?market? test of comparable or\n> reasonable rents.\n>\n> 4. Restrict the payment for vacant units to 30 days with an option for\n> the PHA to extend an additional 30 days only if the PHA has failed to\nrefer\n> sufficient potential tenants.\n>\n>\nI?d rather leave the proposal as Barbara drafted it. We should\nstrive\n> to encourage quick replacement of departing voucher holders. The\nproposal\n> does so by requiring that any owner/PHA contract that provides for vacancy\n> payments must require each party to take ?every reasonable step to\nminimize\n> the likelihood and extent of any such vacancy.?\n>\n>\nAs a practical matter, 30 days is too short to cover an owner?s\nlikely\n> vacancy risk under the program. If the departing tenant hasn?t given much\n> notice, it could take several weeks just for the PHA to screen the next\n> willing family on its list, have the tenant see the apartment, and even if\n> the tenant and owner agree, the tenant may have to give notice on the\n> family?s current unit before moving in. In contrast, an owner not bound\n> by a project-based contract can rent to a willing family as soon as s/he\n> knows of an upcoming vacancy, and require the family to pay rent whether\nor\n> not it occupies the unit immediately. Providing two months of vacancy\n> payments levels the playing field so that an owner doesn?t take a loss for\n> participating in the program. In any case the vacancy payments can be\npaid\n> for up to 60 days - the length of time/amount of the payment is a PHA\n> option.\n>\n>\n>\nastrads\nFrancis S. Redburn\n09/07/2000\n03:11:21 PM\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nMichael Deich/OMB/EOP@EOP\nCC:\nSee the distribution list at the bottom of this message\nSubject: Barbara Sard's \"Project Basing\" Legislative Proposal\nYou asked for reactions to the latest version\nBarbara\nproposal.\nJim, Lauren Bloomquist, and I have\nlooked at it and offer the following comments\nIf enacted, it would make PHAs' existing discretion to project-base up to 15 percent of their housing\nvouchers (up to 250,000 units nationally) more fiexible and easier to use, especially to foster rehabilitation\nand new construction. It also would authorize a new category of \"housing production vouchers\" (HPVs)\nfor extremely low-income families, plus a one-time grant to the developer, to be used for up to 25 percent\nof units constructed with support of the Low-income Housing Tax Credit or FHA's \"risk-sharing\" mortgage\ninsurance program. The latter is similar to the 2001 Budget proposal for 10,000 vouchers to be used in\nTax Credit and certain FHA-insured projects. 7 are you ok with this?\nIn both cases, voucher holders moving into project- based units would have the option to reject the unit\nwithout losing their place in line for voucher assistance and could move elsewhere with the voucher after\nthe one-year initial lease period. The project owner would be guaranteed a replacement voucher holder\nfor the term of the contract -- up to ten years initia\nthe regular program and up to 15 years for HPVs.\nLikely Effects\nWe believe that, by making it more attractive and easier for PHAs to project-base vouchers and by giving\nlandlords incentives to sign long-term (10 or 15 year) assistance contracts (subject to annual\nappropriations and willingness of voucher holders to live there), the proposal will result in project-basing\nmany vouchers. Incentives include the ability to set a higher payment standard than for other vouchers\nand to pay owners for up to 60 days for vacancies when they occur.\nIn locations where landlord participation in the voucher program has been a problem, the long-term\ncommitment to accept voucher holders could increase landlord participation and help sustain success\nrates when markets are tight and rents rise. Rents would be capped by a maximum payment standard\njust as they are for other voucher holders, but may differ from (exceed) the payment standard that a PHA\napplies to its other vouchers still cannot go above 110%\nThe proposal also could serve as an inducement for development of additional affordable housing. This is\nclearly the case for the HPV component. However, a PHA could also offer a developer a commitment to\nproject-base vouchers for up to 100 percent of the units (up to 50 percent in a high-poverty neighborhood)\nin a new or rehabbed property initially for up to 10 years but with the commitment extendible at the PHA's\noption, thereby increasing supply. We therefore expect some PHAs to use project-basing of their existing\nvouchers (as opposed to HPV vouchers if available) to induce the construction or rehabilitation of new\nsubsidized housing.\nOur Concerns\nWe believe that the proposal as drafted preserves voucher holder choice, which is critical both to\nmaximizing the benefits of the voucher to the recipient and to providing an incentive for good operation of\nwoucher\nKS.\n/\n$8 terms Jhis\nstandard could PHAS\napprove the\na project. However, to the extent that PHAs use this option, it results in voucher holders having to reside\nin a project for one year before they are eligible to move. Thus, there is some reduction in voucher\ndanset Lit\nbenefits resulting from mobility and choice.\nWe note that project-basing of units is likely to concentrate voucher holders in fewer properties, but this\nHE but\neffect is minimized as long as project-basing in each PHA remains capped at 15 percent of the vouchers.\n?\nmakes that\nWe note that the incentive for good operation is considerably weakened by the commitment to replace\nthey\ndeparting voucher holders and by the payments for vacant units. The latter also works against the goal of\nchoice?\nhave\nbesief ness\nappropriations.\nincreasing voucher utilization and reduces tradeoff the number of voucher holders aided at a given level of\ncurrentpolity\nallowspetas\nto\npug\nfor\n1\ninspections\nrequired\npayment\nmode\nOur greatest concern is that PHAs will use project to create new 100 percent subsidized projects\n$at mergin. must\nat rents that are not based on the market and are\nner than those set for other voucher holders. We see\nwhite\nin this at least the potential for collusive arrang\nbetween PHAs and developers that would conflict\ndisirution\nat\nwith the interests of tenants and ultimately damage the program's reputation through a canorlybe509. subsequent\nscandal.\nif\nits\nin\npoverty\nshborhood\nexisting\ncould reduce to 25%\nauthority\nWe also are concerned that Barbara's carefully crafted proposal could be readily modified on the Hill,\neither initially or over time, to favor the interests of developers over those of program recipients. If PHAs\nand development interests find project-basing attractive, they may try over time to raise the percentage\ncap; and, if they find the voucher holder's option to move creates cash flow problems for these properties,\nthey may attempt to restrict their option to leave a bad property.\nAt a minimum, we would recommend the following changes to the proposal, in priority order: up to 10 at\ndiscretion BPHAS- eliminate requirement\nstatute\n1.\nRestrict\nthe\nterm\nof\nassistance\ncontracts\nwith\nwhe to the existing five years rather than the\nnow requies\nproposed 10 years (with renewal at PHA\nor\nyears\n(for\nHPVs)\nIf\nthe\ngoal\nis\nto\naddress\na\nownebt\ncyclical problem of tight market conditions,\nObtain\nmore and better properties, in a greater rang\nive years is sufficient. We also think that owners of renewal. accept\nme\nlocations, would be more interested if they are not\nlocked in for such a long period. In fact, we wonder about the motives of owners/developers who\ninspections\nwould enter into such a long-term deal with a one-sided renewal option. For the Government, a\nshorter contract period reduces the risks associated with long-term entanglements with particular)\nproperties and owners.\nwe reduced the MSts w/ chone K\n2. Cap the percentage of units in any one property that can be covered by a project-basing contract to term\n25 percent of the units in all cases, not just for the HPV component. This reduces the risk of\nnot\nconcentration and of creating projects that are developed primarily because the PHA has ensured\noption\ncontinued cash flow to the project from subsidy holders and not because the developer thinks the\ncannot\nproperty can be supported over a long period by the market. NONPROFIT DEVELOPERS\nensure\n3. Restrict rents to the local payment standard fo: other vouchers and consider applying the\nproject-based comparability test now in statute for other project-based Section 8 subsidies or another\nas long\nmarket test to limit rents. This reduces the risk of subsidizing properties in excess of their market\nas\ntoo\nvalue and of non-competitive, above-market deals between PHAs and developers.\n4.\nRestrict the payment for vacant units to 30 day with an option for the PHA to extend for another 30\nyou're\neal\ndays only if it has failed to deliver an acccepts numbe of voucher holders in that time period. This\nrestricting\nminimizes the reduction in voucher utilization and encourages quick replacement of departing voucher\nthe\nwe are only\nholders. why is reasonableness? this better rent\ncapping\nsprobably would serve\nneighborhod\nFpl. at market\nmoodl\ndevelopment\nMessage Copied To:\nneed to proposea change.\nhow is this prevented?\nunder unity statute\nPHAS can dothis\nnow continuos\ncan be about where they're based\nBarbara's proposal nothing only if it helps wf decorientrat high pruty 100\nonly to > 5090 if we wish 100 growth area\nAlan B. Rhinesmith/OMB/EOP@EOP\nJames F. Jordan/OMB/EOP@EOP\nLauren E. Bloomquist/OMB/EOP@EOP\nAdam Hoffberg/OMB/EOP@EOP\nMargy Waller/OPD/EOP@EOP\nJanis A. Coughlin/OMB/EOP@EOP\nSherron Duncan/OMB/EOP@EOP\nnew araphs\n(d)+ (e)\nproject\nbestd\nwould allow PHA to set a diff. rent for buildings than\nthe neighborhood\nwould still be capped by statutory authority\n110%\nif this were a tenant based voucher in a bldg.\ncan approve reasonable rent\n4\ntenant pays the\nanD.\nNAHRO an enormous # of units\nmake change easin because it's smaller\n$ursi its a small potential cost\nexaggerate fiscal effect.\n1\nwe should set naturial guidelins for rent reasonableness\nPHAS\nset their own guidelines\nSEMAP\nsevaluates whether PHA uses its own\nindicators\nstandard\nThey can't figure out anything better.\nHouse dems increase w25% of portfolio\nur no limit on prient of units\n+ not very helpful language ASSO on\nsomething will be filed ui the House\non linking\n- continued assistance option \"optional\" for new vouchas\n- could be a pourty ansus track in certain\n-not restricted to large families\n-upto 50%\nAdmin:\nNothappy.\nExpand prtfolio\nto 25% wy out restrictions onpercent of\nunits 8 neigiborhood.\nSenate mark up should welude something good\nAdministration should put something forward.\nchange Statute\nIf people\nmake project - basing more workable\ncanonly be done by statute\nNo clarity @ rent\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r106:1:./temp/~r1061BFp7F:e92738.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDOC Contents\nCONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4635, DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING\nAND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001\n(House of Representatives - October 18, 2000)\nINTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON THE HOMELESS REFORMS\nSec. 231. Title II of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act is amended--\n(1) in section 202, under subsection (b) by inserting after the period the following:\n'The positions of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall rotate among its members on an annual\nbasis.'; and\n(2) in section 209 by striking ' 1994' and inserting '2005'.\nSECTION 8 PHA PROJECT-BASED ASSISTANCE\nSec. 232. (a) In General: Paragraph (13) of section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42\nU.S.C. 1437f(o)(13)) is amended to read as follows:\n(13) PHA project-based assistance:\n(A) In general: A public housing agency may use amounts provided under an annual contributions\ncontract under this subsection to enter into a housing assistance payment contract with respect to an\nexisting, newly constructed, or rehabilitated structure, that is attached to the structure, subject to the\nlimitations and requirements of this paragraph.\n(B) Percentage limitation: Not more than 20 percent of the funding available for tenant-based\nassistance under this section that is administered by the agency may be attached to structures pursuant\nto this paragraph.\n(C) Consistency with pha plan and other goals: A public housing agency may approve a housing\nassistance payment contract pursuant to this paragraph only if the contract is consistent with--\n(i) the public housing agency plan for the agency approved under section 5A; and\n(ii) the goal of deconcentrating poverty and expanding housing and economic opportunities.\n(D) Income mixing requirement:\n(i) In general: Not more than 25 percent of the dwelling units in any building may be assisted under\n1 of 8\n10/19/2000 1:24 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r106:1:./temp/~r1061BFp7F:e92738\na housing assistance payment contract for project-based assistance pursuant to this paragraph.\n(ii) Exceptions: The limitation under clause (i) shall not apply in the case of assistance under a\ncontract for housing consisting of single family properties or for dwelling units that are specifically made\navailable for households comprised of elderly families, disabled families, and families receiving\nsupportive services.\n(E) Resident choice requirement: A housing assistance payment contract pursuant to this\nparagraph shall provide as follows:\n(i) Mobility: Each low-income family occupying a dwelling unit assisted under the contract may move\nfrom the housing at any time after the family has occupied the dwelling unit for 12 months.\n(ii) Continued assistance: Upon such a move, the public housing agency shall provide the\nlow-income family with tenant-based rental assistance under this section or such other tenant-based\nrental assistance that is subject to comparable income, assistance, rent contribution, affordability, and\nother requirements, as the Secretary shall provide by regulation. If such rental assistance is not\nimmediately available to fulfill the requirement under the preceding sentence with respect to a\nlow-income family, such requirement may be met by providing the family priority to receive the next\nvoucher or other tenant-based rental assistance amounts that become available under the program\nused to fulfill such requirement.\n(F) Contract term: A housing assistance payment contract pursuant to this paragraph between a\npublic housing agency and the owner of a structure may have a term of up to 10 years, subject to the\navailability of sufficient appropriated funds for the purpose of renewing expiring contracts for assistance\npayments, as provided in appropriations Acts and in the agency's annual contributions contract with the\nSecretary, and to annual compliance with the inspection requirements under paragraph (8), except that\nthe agency shall not be required to make annual inspections of each assisted unit in the development.\nThe contract may specify additional conditions for its continuation. If the units covered by the contract\nare owned by the agency, the term of the contract shall be agreed upon by the agency and the unit of\ngeneral local government or other entity approved by the Secretary in the manner provided under\nparagraph (11).\n(G) Extension of contract term: A public housing agency may enter into a contract with the owner\nof a structure assisted under a housing assistance payment contract pursuant to this paragraph to\nextend the term of the underlying housing assistance payment contract for such period as the agency\ndetermines to be appropriate to achieve long-term affordability of the housing or to expand housing\nopportunities. Such a contract shall provide that the extension of such term shall be contingent upon\nthe future availability of appropriated funds for the purpose of renewing expiring contracts for\nassistance payments, as provided in appropriations Acts, and may obligate the owner to have such\nextensions of the underlying housing assistance payment contract accepted by the owner and the\nsuccessors in interest of the owner.\n(H) Rent calculation: A housing assistance payment contract pursuant to this paragraph shall\nestablish rents for each unit assisted in an amount that does not exceed 110 percent of the applicable\nfair market rental (or any exception payment standard approved by the Secretary pursuant to paragraph\n(1)(D)), except that if a contract covers a dwelling unit that has been allocated low-income housing tax\ncredits pursuant to section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 42) and is not located in\na qualified census tract (as such term is defined in subsection (d) of such section 42), the rent for such\nunit may be established at any level that does not exceed the rent charged for comparable units in the\nbuilding that also receive the low-income housing tax credit but do not have additional rental assistance.\nThe rents established by housing assistance payment contracts pursuant to this paragraph may vary\n2 of 8\n10/19/2000 1:24 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r106:1:./temp/~r1061BFp7F:e92738\nfrom the payment standards established by the public housing agency pursuant to paragraph (1)(B),\nbut shall be subject to paragraph (10)(A).\n(I) Rent adjustments: A housing assistance payments contract pursuant to this paragraph shall\nprovide for rent adjustments, except that--\n(i) the adjusted rent for any unit assisted shall be reasonable in comparison with rents charged for\ncomparable dwelling units in the private, unassisted, local market and may not exceed the maximum\nrent permitted under subparagraph (H); and\n(ii) the provisions of subsection (c)(2)(C) shall not apply.\n(J) Tenant selection: A public housing agency shall select families to receive project-based\nassistance pursuant to this paragraph from its waiting list for assistance under this subsection. Eligibility\nfor such project-based assistance shall be subject to the provisions of section 16(b) that apply to\ntenant-based assistance. The agency may establish preferences or criteria for selection for a unit\nassisted under this paragraph that are consistent with the public housing agency plan for the agency\napproved under section 5A. Any family that rejects an offer of project-based assistance under this\nparagraph or that is rejected for admission to a structure by the owner or manager of a structure\nassisted under this paragraph shall retain its place on the waiting list as if the offer had not been made.\nThe owner or manager of a structure assisted under this paragraph shall not admit any family to a\ndwelling unit assisted under a contract pursuant to this paragraph other than a family referred by the\npublic housing agency from its waiting list. Subject to its waiting list policies and selection preferences,\na public housing agency may place on its waiting list a family referred by the owner or manager of a\nstructure and may maintain a separate waiting list for assistance under this paragraph, but only if all\nfamilies on the agency's waiting list for assistance under this subsection are permitted to place their\nnames on the separate list.\n(K) Vacated units: Notwithstanding paragraph (9), a housing assistance payment contract pursuant\nto this paragraph may provide as follows:\n(i) Payment for vacant units: That the public housing agency may, in its discretion, continue to\nprovide assistance under the contract, for a reasonable period not exceeding 60 days, for a dwelling\nunit that becomes vacant, but only (I) if the vacancy was not the fault of the owner of the dwelling unit,\nand (II) the agency and the owner take every reasonable action to minimize the likelihood and extent of\nany such vacancy. Rental assistance may not be provided for a vacant unit after the expiration of such\nperiod.\n(ii) Reduction of contract: That, if despite reasonable efforts of the agency and the owner to fill a\nvacant unit, no eligible family has agreed to rent the unit within 120 days after the owner has notified\nthe agency of the vacancy, the agency may reduce its housing assistance payments contract with the\nowner by the amount equivalent to the remaining months of subsidy attributable to the vacant unit.\nAmounts deobligated pursuant to such a contract provision shall be available to the agency to provide\nassistance under this subsection.\nEligible applicants for assistance under this subsection may enforce provisions authorized by this\nsubparagraph.'.\n(b) Applicability: In the case of any dwelling unit that, upon the date of the enactment of this Act, is\nassisted under a housing assistance payment contract under section 8(o)(13) of the United States\nHousing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(13)) as in effect before such enactment, such assistance may\nbe extended or renewed notwithstanding the requirements under subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) of\nsuch section 8(o)(13), as amended by subsection (a).\n3 of 8\n10/19/2000 1:24 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r106:1:./temp/~r1061BFp7F:e92738.\n[Page: H10092] GPO's PDF\nDISPOSITION OF HUD-HELD AND HUD-OWNED MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS\nFOR THE ELDERLY OR DISABLED\nSec. 233. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in managing and disposing of any multifamily\nproperty that is owned or held by the Secretary and is occupied primarily by elderly or disabled families,\nthe Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall maintain any rental assistance payments under\nsection 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 that are attached to any dwelling units in the\nproperty. To the extent the Secretary determines that such a multifamily property owned or held by the\nSecretary is not feasible for continued rental assistance payments under such section 8, the Secretary\nmay, in consultation with the tenants of that property, contract for project-based rental assistance\npayments with an owner or owners of other existing housing properties or provide other rental\nassistance.\nFAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM\nSec. 234. Section 8(x)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C 1437f(x)(2)) is amended--\n(1) by striking any family (A) who is otherwise eligible for such assistance, and (B)' and inserting (A)\nany family (i) who is otherwise eligible for such assistance, and (ii)'; and\n(2) by inserting before the period at the end the following: `and (B) for a period not to exceed 18\nmonths, otherwise eligible youths who have attained at least 18 years of age and not more than 21\nyears of age and who have left foster care at age 16 or older'.\nPERMANENT EXTENSION OF FHA MULTIFAMILY MORTGAGE CREDIT\nDEMONSTRATIONS\nSec. 235. Section 542 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 1707 note)\nis amended--\n(1) in subsection (a)--\n(A) in the first sentence, by striking demonstrate the effectiveness of providing' and inserting\nprovide'; and\n(B) in the second sentence, by striking demonstration' and inserting 'the';\n(2) in subsection (b)--\n(A) in paragraph (1), by striking `determine the effectiveness of' and inserting `provide'; and\n(B) by striking paragraph (5), and inserting the following new paragraph:\n(5) Insurance authority: Using any authority provided in appropriation Acts to insure mortgages\nunder the National Housing Act, the Secretary may enter into commitments under this subsection for\n4 of 8\n10/19/2000 1:24 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r106:1:./temp/r1061BFp7F:e92738\nrisk-sharing units.';\n(3) in subsection (c)--\n(A) in paragraph (1), by striking `test the effectiveness of' and inserting provide'; and\n(B) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following new paragraph:\n(4) Insurance authority: Using any authority provided in appropriation Acts to insure mortgages\nunder the National Housing Act, the Secretary may enter into commitments under this subsection for\nrisk-sharing units.';\n(4) by striking subsection (d);\n(5) by striking pilot' and Pilot' each place such terms appear; and\n(6) in the section heading, by striking demonstrations' and inserting programs'.\nTITLE III--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES\nAmerican Battle Monuments Commission\nsalaries and expenses\nFor necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the American Battle Monuments Commission,\nincluding the acquisition of land or interest in land in foreign countries; purchases and repair of\nuniforms for caretakers of national cemeteries and monuments outside of the United States and its\nterritories and possessions; rent of office and garage space in foreign countries; purchase (one for\nreplacement only) and hire of passenger motor vehicles; and insurance of official motor vehicles in\nforeign countries, when required by law of such countries, $28,000,000, to remain available until\nexpended.\nChemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board\nSALARIES AND EXPENSES\nFor necessary expenses in carrying out activities pursuant to section 112(r)(6) of the Clean Air Act,\nincluding hire of passenger vehicles, and for services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for\nindividuals not to exceed the per diem equivalent to the maximum rate payable for senior level positions\nunder 5 U.S.C. 5376, $7,500,000, $5,000,000 of which to remain available until September 30, 2001\nand $2,500,000 of which to remain available until September 30, 2002: Provided, That the Chemical\nSafety and Hazard Investigation Board shall have not more than three career Senior Executive Service\npositions: Provided further, That there shall be an Inspector General at the Board who shall have the\nduties, responsibilities, and authorities specified in the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended:\nProvided further, That an individual appointed to the position of Inspector General of the Federal\nEmergency Management Agency (FEMA) shall, by virtue of such appointment, also hold the position of\nInspector General of the Board: Provided further, That the Inspector General of the Board shall utilize\npersonnel of the Office of Inspector General of FEMA in performing the duties of the Inspector General\n5 of 8\n10/19/2000 1:24 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r106:1:./temp/~r1061BFp7F:e92738:\nof the Board, and shall not appoint any individuals to positions within the Board.\nDepartment of the Treasury\nCommunity Development Financial Institutions\nCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS\nFUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT\nTo carry out the Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994, including\nservices authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not to exceed the per diem rate\nequivalent to the rate for ES-3, $118,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2002, of which\n$5,000,000 shall be for technical assistance and training programs designed to benefit Native American\nCommunities, and up to $8,750,000 may be used for administrative expenses, up to $19,750,000 may\nbe used for the cost of direct loans, and up to $1,000,000 may be used for administrative expenses to\ncarry out the direct loan program: Provided, That the cost of direct loans, including the cost of\nmodifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:\nProvided further, That these funds are available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount\nof direct loans not to exceed $53,000,000.\nConsumer Product Safety Commission\nSALARIES AND EXPENSES\nFor necessary expenses of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, including hire of passenger motor\nvehicles, services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not to exceed the per diem\nrate equivalent to the maximum rate payable under 5 U.S.C. 5376, purchase of nominal awards to\nrecognize non-Federal officials' contributions to Commission activities, and not to exceed $500 for\nofficial reception and representation expenses, $52,500,000.\nCorporation for National and Community Service\nNATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAMS\nOPERATING EXPENSES\n(INCLUDING TRANSFER AND RESCISSION OF FUNDS)\nFor necessary expenses for the Corporation for National and Community Service (referred to in the\nmatter under this heading as the Corporation') in carrying out programs, activities, and initiatives\nunder the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (referred to in the matter under this heading as\nthe 'Act') (42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.), $458,500,000, to remain available until September 30, 2002:\nProvided, That not more than $31,000,000 shall be available for administrative expenses authorized\nunder section 501(a)(4) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12671(a)(4)) with not less than $2,000,000 targeted for\nthe acquisition of a cost accounting system for the Corporation's financial management system, an\n6 of 8\n10/19/2000 1:24 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r106:1:./temp/~r1061BFp7F:e92738\nintegrated grants management system that provides comprehensive financial management information\nfor all Corporation grants and cooperative agreements, and the establishment, operation and\nmaintenance of a central archives serving as the repository for all grant, cooperative agreement, and\nrelated documents, without regard to the provisions of section 501(a)(4)(B) of the Act: Provided further,\nThat not more than $2,500 shall be for official reception and representation expenses: Provided further,\nThat not more than $70,000,000, to remain available without fiscal year limitation, shall be transferred\nto the National Service Trust account for educational awards authorized under subtitle D of title I of the\nAct (42 U.S.C. 12601 et seq.), of which not to exceed $5,000,000 shall be available for national service\nscholarships for high school students performing community service: Provided further, That not more\nthan $231,000,000 of the amount provided under this heading shall be available for grants under the\nNational Service Trust program authorized under subtitle C of title I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12571 et seq.)\n(relating to activities including the AmeriCorps program), of which not more than $45,000,000 may be\nused to administer, reimburse, or support any national service program authorized under section\n121(d)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 12581(d)(2)); and not more than $25,000,000 may be made available\nto activities dedicated to developing computer and information technology skills for students and\nteachers in low-income communities: Provided further, That not more than $10,000,000 of the funds\nmade available under this heading shall be made available for the Points of Light Foundation for\nactivities authorized under title III of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12661 et seq.): Provided further, That no funds\nshall be available for national service programs run by Federal agencies authorized under section 121(b)\nof such Act (42 U.S.C. 12571(b)): Provided further, That to the maximum extent feasible, funds\nappropriated under subtitle C of title I of the Act shall be provided in a manner that is consistent with\nthe recommendations of peer review panels in order to ensure that priority is given to programs that\ndemonstrate quality, innovation, replicability, and sustainability: Provided further, That not more than\n$21,000,000 of the funds made available under this heading shall be available for the Civilian\nCommunity Corps authorized under subtitle E of title I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12611 et seq.): Provided\nfurther, That not more than $43,000,000 shall be available for school-based and community-based\nservice-learning programs authorized under subtitle B of title I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12521 et seq.):\nProvided further, That not more than $28,500,000 shall be available for quality and innovation activities\nauthorized under subtitle H of title I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12853 et seq.): Provided further, That not\nmore than $5,000,000 shall be available for audits and other evaluations authorized under section 179\nof the Act (42 U.S.C. 12639): Provided further, That to the maximum extent practicable, the Corporation\nshall increase significantly the level of matching funds and in-kind contributions provided by the private\nsector, shall expand significantly the number of educational awards provided under subtitle D of title I,\nand shall reduce the total Federal costs per participant in all programs: Provided further, That of\namounts available in the National Service Trust account from previous appropriations Acts, $30,000,000\nshall be rescinded: Provided further, That not\nmore than $7,500,000 of the funds made available under this heading shall be made available to\nAmerica's Promise--The Alliance for Youth, Inc. only to support efforts to mobilize individuals, groups,\nand organizations to build and strengthen the character and competence of the Nation's youth: Providea\nfurther, That not more than $5,000,000 of the funds made available under this heading shall be made\navailable to the Communities In Schools, Inc. to support dropout prevention activities: Provided further,\nThat not more than $2,500,000 of the funds made available under this heading shall be made available\nto the Parents as Teachers National Center, Inc. to support childhood parent education and family\nsupport activities: Provided further, That not more than $2,500,000 of the funds made available under\nthis heading shall be made available to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America to establish an innovative\noutreach program designed to meet the special needs of youth in public and Native American housing\ncommunities: Provided further, That not more than $1,500,000 of the funds made available under this\nheading shall be made available to the Youth Life Foundation to meet the needs of children living in\ninsecure environments.\n7 of 8\n10/19/2000 1:24 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r106:1:./temp/vr1061BFp7F:e92738\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDOC Contents\n8 of 8\n10/19/2000 1:24 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r106:1:./temp/~r1061BFp7F:e2386:\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDOC Contents\nCONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4635, DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING\nAND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001\n(House of Representatives October 18, 2000)\nJOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF\nCONFERENCE\nThe managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the conference on the disagreeing votes of\nthe two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4635) making appropriations for the\nDepartments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent\nagencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001,\nand for other purposes, submit the following joint statement to the House and the Senate in explanation\nof the effect of the action agreed upon by the managers and recommended in the accompanying report.\nThis conference agreement includes more than the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and\nUrban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001. The conference agreement\nhas been expanded to include the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2001, as well as\nthe Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies\nAppropriations Act, 2001. Both of these Acts have been enacted into law by reference in this conference\nreport; however, a copy of the referenced legislation has been included in this statement for\nconvenience.\nDEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND\nURBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES\nAPPROPRIATIONS\nThe conference agreement would enact the provisions of H.R. 5482 as introduced on October 18, 2000.\nThe text of that bill follows:\nA BILL Making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban\nDevelopment, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for\nthe fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.\nBe it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress\nassembled, That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise\nappropriated, for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for\nsundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending\nSeptember 30, 2001, and for other purposes, namely:\nTITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\n1 of 8\n10/19/2000 1:21 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r106:1:./temp/~r1061BFp7F:e2386\nVeterans Benefits Administration\nCOMPENSATION AND PENSIONS\n(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)\nFor the payment of compensation benefits to or on behalf of veterans and a pilot program for disability\nexaminations as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. 107, chapters 11, 13, 18, 51, 53, 55, and 61); pension\nbenefits to or on behalf of veterans as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. chapters 15, 51, 53, 55, and 61; 92\nStat. 2508); and burial benefits, emergency and other officers' retirement pay, adjusted-service credits\nand certificates, payment of premiums due on commercial life insurance policies guaranteed under the\nprovisions of Article IV of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, as amended, and for other\nbenefits as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. 107, 1312, 1977, and 2106, chapters 23, 51, 53, 55, and 61;\n50 U.S.C. App. 540-548; 43 Stat. 122, 123; 45 Stat. 735; 76 Stat. 1198), $22,766,276,000, to remain\navailable until expended: Provided, That not to exceed $17,419,000 of the amount appropriated shall be\nreimbursed to General operating expenses' and Medical care' for necessary expenses in implementing\nthose provisions authorized in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, and in the Veterans'\nBenefits Act of 1992 (38 U.S.C. chapters 51, 53, and 55), the funding source for which is specifically\nprovided as the Compensation and pensions' appropriation: Provided further, That such sums as may\nbe earned on an actual qualifying patient basis, shall be reimbursed to Medical facilities revolving fund'\nto augment the funding of individual medical facilities for nursing home care provided to pensioners as\nauthorized.\nREADJUSTMENT BENEFITS\nFor the payment of readjustment and rehabilitation benefits to or on behalf of veterans as authorized by\n38 U.S.C. chapters 21, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 39, 51, 53, 55, and 61, $1,634,000,000, to remain available\nuntil expended: Provided, That expenses for rehabilitation program services and assistance which the\nSecretary is authorized to provide under section 3104(a) of title 38, United States Code, other than\nunder subsection (a)(1), (2), (5) and (11) of that section, shall be charged to the account: Provided\nfurther, That funds shall be available to pay any court order, court award or any compromise settlement\narising from litigation involving the vocational training program authorized by section 18 of Public Law\n98-77, as amended.\nVETERANS INSURANCE AND INDEMNITIES\nFor military and naval insurance, national service life insurance, servicemen's indemnities,\nservice-disabled veterans insurance, and veterans mortgage life insurance as authorized by 38 U.S.C.\nchapter 19; 70 Stat. 887; 72 Stat. 487, $19,850,000, to remain available until expended.\nVETERANS HOUSING BENEFIT PROGRAM FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT\n(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)\nFor the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, such sums as may be necessary to carry out the program,\nas authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 37, as amended: Provided, That such costs, including the cost of\nmodifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as\namended: Provided further, That during fiscal year 2001, within the resources available, not to exceed\n2 of 8\n10/19/2000 1:21 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r106:1:./temp/vr1061BFp7F:e2386:\n$300,000 in gross obligations for direct loans are authorized for specially adapted housing loans.\nIn addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the direct and guaranteed loan programs,\n$162,000,000, which may be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for General operating\nexpenses'.\nEDUCATION LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT\n(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)\nFor the cost of direct loans, $1,000, as authorized by 38 U.S.C. 3698, as amended: Provided, That such\ncosts, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be\nas defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided further, That\nthese funds are available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of direct loans not to\nexceed $3,400.\nIn addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry out the direct loan program, $220,000,\nwhich may be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for General operating expenses'.\n[Page: H10084] GPO's PDF\nVOCATIONAL REHABILITATION LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT\n(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)\nFor the cost of direct loans, $52,000, as authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 31, as amended: Provided,\nThat such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the\nCongressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided further, That these funds are available to\nsubsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of direct loans not to exceed $2,726,000.\nIn addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry out the direct loan program, $432,000,\nwhich may be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for General operating expenses'.\nNATIVE AMERICAN VETERAN HOUSING LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT\n(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)\nFor administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan program authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 37,\nsubchapter V, as amended, $532,000, which may be transferred to and merged with the appropriation\nfor General operating expenses'.\nGUARANTEED TRANSITIONAL HOUSING LOANS FOR HOMELESS VETERANS\nPROGRAM ACCOUNT\n(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)\nNot to exceed $750,000 of the amounts appropriated by this Act for `General operating expenses' and\nMedical care' may be expended for the administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan\nprogram authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 37, subchapter VI.\n3 of 8\n10/19/2000 1:21 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r106:1:./temp/~r1061BFp7F:e2386:\nVeterans Health Administration\nMEDICAL CARE\n(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)\nFor necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of hospitals, nursing homes, and domiciliary\nfacilities; for furnishing, as authorized by law, inpatient and outpatient care and treatment to\nbeneficiaries of the Department of Veterans Affairs, including care and treatment in facilities not under\nthe jurisdiction of the department; and furnishing recreational facilities, supplies, and equipment;\nfuneral, burial, and other expenses incidental thereto for beneficiaries receiving care in the department;\nadministrative expenses in support of planning, design, project management, real property acquisition\nand disposition, construction and renovation of any facility under the jurisdiction or for the use of the\ndepartment; oversight, engineering and architectura! activities not charged to project cost; repairing,\naltering, improving or providing facilities in the several hospitals and homes under the jurisdiction of the\ndepartment, not otherwise provided for, either by contract or by the hire of temporary employees and\npurchase of materials; uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; aid to\nState homes as authorized by 38 U.S.C. 1741; administrative and legal expenses of the department for\ncollecting and recovering amounts owed the department as authorized under 38 U.S.C. chapter 17, and\nthe Federal Medical Care Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 2651 et seq., $20,281,587,000, plus reimbursements:\nProvided, That of the funds made available under this heading, $900,000,000 is for the equipment and\nland and structures object classifications only, which amount shall not become available for obligation\nuntil August 1, 2001, and shall remain available until September 30, 2002: Provided further, That of the\nfunds made available under this heading, not to exceed $500,000,000 shall be available until September\n30, 2002: Provided further, That of the funds made available under this heading, not to exceed\n$28,134,000 may be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for General operating\nexpenses': Provided further, That the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall conduct by contract a program\nof recovery audits for the fee basis and other medical services contracts with respect to payments for\nhospital care; and, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302(b), amounts collected, by setoff or otherwise, as the\nresult of such audits shall be available, without fiscal year limitation, for the purposes for which funds\nare appropriated under this heading and the purposes of paying a contractor a percent of the amount\ncollected as a result of an audit carried out by the contractor: Provided further, That all amounts so\ncollected under the preceding proviso with respect to a designated health care region (as that term is\ndefined in 38 U.S.C. 1729A(d)(2)) shall be allocated, net of payments to the contractor, to that region.\nIn addition, in conformance with Public Law 105-33 establishing the Department of Veterans Affairs\nMedical Care Collections Fund, such sums as may be deposited to such Fund pursuant to 38 U.S.C.\n1729A may be transferred to this account, to remain available until expended for the purposes of this\naccount.\nNone of the foregoing funds may be transferred to the Department of Justice for the purposes of\nsupporting tobacco litigation.\nMEDICAL AND PROSTHETIC RESEARCH\nFor necessary expenses in carrying out programs of medical and prosthetic research and development\nas authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 73, to remain available until September 30, 2002, $351,000,000,\nplus reimbursements.\n4 of 8\n10/19/2000 1:21 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r106:1:./temp/vr1061BFp7F:e2386:\nMEDICAL ADMINISTRATION AND MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING EXPENSES\nFor necessary expenses in the administration of the medical, hospital, nursing home, domiciliary,\nconstruction, supply, and research activities, as authorized by law; administrative expenses in support of\ncapital policy activities, $62,000,000 plus reimbursements: Provided, That technical and consulting\nservices offered by the Facilities Management Field Service, including project management and real\nproperty administration (including leases, site acquisition and disposal activities directly supporting\nprojects), shall be provided to Department of Veterans Affairs components only on a reimbursable basis,\nand such amounts will remain available until September 30, 2001.\nDepartmental Administration\nGENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES\nFor necessary operating expenses of the Department of Veterans Affairs, not otherwise provided for,\nincluding uniforms or allowances therefor; not to exceed $25,000 for official reception and\nrepresentation expenses; hire of passenger motor vehicles; and reimbursement of the General Services\nAdministration for security guard services, and the Department of Defense for the cost of overseas\nemployee mail, $1,050,000,000: Provided, That expenses for services and assistance authorized under\n38 U.S.C. 3104(a) (1), (2), (5) and (11) that the Secretary determines are necessary to enable entitled\nveterans (1) to the maximum extent feasible, to become employable and to obtain and maintain\nsuitable employment; or (2) to achieve maximum independence in daily living, shall be charged to this\naccount: Provided further, That of the funds made available under this heading, not to exceed\n$45,000,000 shall be available until September 30, 2002: Provided further, That funds under this\nheading shall be available to administer the Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training Act.\nnational cemetery administration\n(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)\nFor necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of the National Cemetery Administration, not\notherwise provided for, including uniforms or allowances therefor; cemeterial expenses as authorized by\nlaw; purchase of two passenger motor vehicles for use in cemeterial operations; and hire of passenger\nmotor vehicles, $109,889,000: Provided, That travel expenses shall not exceed $1,125,000: Provided\nfurther, That of the amount made available under this heading, not to exceed $125,000 may be\ntransferred to and merged with the appropriation for General operating expenses'.\noffice of inspector general\n(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)\nFor necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General in carrying out the Inspector General Act of\n1978, as amended, $46,464,000: Provided, That of the amount made available under this heading, not\nto exceed $28,000 may be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for General operating\nexpenses'.\n5 of 8\n10/19/2000 1:21 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r106:1:/temp/~r1061BFp7F:e23861\nCONSTRUCTION, MAJOR PROJECTS\nFor constructing, altering, extending and improving any of the facilities under the jurisdiction or for the\nuse of the Department of Veterans Affairs, or for any of the purposes set forth in sections 316, 2404,\n2406, 8102, 8103, 8106, 8108, 8109, 8110, and 8122 of title 38, United States Code, including\nplanning, architectural and engineering services, maintenance or guarantee period services costs\nassociated with equipment guarantees provided under the project, services of claims analysts, offsite\nutility and storm drainage system construction costs, and site acquisition, where the estimated cost of a\nproject is $4,000,000 or more or where funds for a project were made available in a previous major\nproject appropriation, $66,040,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That except for\nadvance planning of projects (including market-based assessments of health care needs which may or\nmay not lead to capital investments) funded through the advance planning fund and the design of\nprojects funded through the design fund, none of these funds shall be used for any project which has\nnot been considered and approved by the Congress in the budgetary process: Provided further, That\nfunds provided in this appropriation for fiscal year 2001, for each approved project shall be obligated:\n(1) by the awarding of a construction documents contract by September 30, 2001; and (2) by the\nawarding of a construction contract by September 30, 2002: Provided further, That the Secretary shall\npromptly report in writing to the Committees on Appropriations any approved major construction project\nin which obligations are not incurred within the time limitations established above: Provided further,\nThat no funds from any other account except the Parking revolving fund', may be obligated for\nconstructing, altering, extending, or improving a project which was approved in the budget process and\nfunded in this account until one year after substantial completion and beneficial occupancy by the\nDepartment of Veterans Affairs of the project or any part thereof with respect to that part only.\nCONSTRUCTION, MINOR PROJECTS\nFor constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the facilities under the jurisdiction or for the\nuse of the Department of Veterans Affairs, including planning, architectural and engineering services,\nmaintenance or guarantee period services costs associated with equipment guarantees provided under\nthe project, services of claims analysts, offsite utility and storm drainage system construction costs, and\nsite acquisition, or for any of the purposes set forth in sections 316, 2404, 2406, 8102, 8103, 8106,\n8108, 8109, 8110, 8122, and 8162 of title 38, United States Code, where the estimated cost of a project\nis less than $4,000,000, $162,000,000, to remain available until expended, along with unobligated\nbalances of previous Construction, minor projects' appropriations which are hereby made available for\nany project where the estimated cost is less than $4,000,000: Provided, That funds in this account shall\nbe available for: (1) repairs to any of the nonmedical facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the\ndepartment which are necessary because of loss or damage caused by any natural disaster or\ncatastrophe; and (2) temporary measures necessary to prevent or to minimize further loss by such\ncauses.\n[Page: H10085] GPO's PDF\nPARKING REVOLVING FUND\nFor the parking revolving fund as authorized by 38 U.S.C. 8109, income from fees collected, to remain\navailable until expended, which shall be available for all authorized expenses except operations and\nmaintenance costs, which will be funded from Medical care'.\n6 of 8\n10/19/2000 1:21 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r106:1:./temp/~r1061BFp7F:e2386\nGRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE EXTENDED CARE FACILITIES\nFor grants to assist States to acquire or construct State nursing home and domiciliary facilities and to\nremodel, modify or alter existing hospital, nursing home and domiciliary facilities in State homes, for\nfurnishing care to veterans as authorized by 38 U.S.C. 8131-8137, $100,000,000, to remain available\nuntil expended.\nGRANTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STATE VETERANS CEMETERIES\nFor grants to aid States in establishing, expanding, or improving State veterans cemeteries as\nauthorized by 38 U.S.C. 2408, $25,000,000, to remain available until expended.\nADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS\n(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)\nSec. 101. Any appropriation for fiscal year 2001 for Compensation and pensions', Readjustment\nbenefits', and Veterans insurance and indemnities' may be transferred to any other of the mentioned\nappropriations.\nSec. 102. Appropriations available to the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2001 for salaries\nand expenses shall be available for services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.\nSec. 103. No appropriations in this Act for the Department of Veterans Affairs (except the\nappropriations for Construction, major projects', Construction, minor projects', and the Parking\nrevolving fund') shall be available for the purchase of any site for or toward the construction of any new\nhospital or home.\nSec. 104. No appropriations in this Act for the Department of Veterans Affairs shall be available for\nhospitalization or examination of any persons (except beneficiaries entitled under the laws bestowing\nsuch benefits to veterans, and persons receiving such treatment under 5 U.S.C. 7901-7904 or 42 U.S.C.\n5141-5204), unless reimbursement of cost is made to the Medical care' account at such rates as may\nbe fixed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.\nSec. 105. Appropriations available to the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2001 for\nCompensation and pensions', Readjustment benefits', and `Veterans insurance and indemnities' shall\nbe available for payment of prior year accrued obligations required to be recorded by law against the\ncorresponding prior year accounts within the last quarter of fiscal year 2000.\nSec. 106. Appropriations accounts available to the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2001\nshall be available to pay prior year obligations of corresponding prior year appropriations accounts\nresulting from title X of the Competitive Equality Banking Act, Public Law 100-86, except that if such\nobligations are from trust fund accounts they shall be payable from Compensation and pensions'.\nSec. 107. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during fiscal year 2001, the Secretary of Veterans\nAffairs shall, from the National Service Life Insurance Fund (38 U.S.C. 1920), the Veterans' Special Life\nInsurance Fund (38 U.S.C. 1923), and the United States Government Life Insurance Fund (38 U.S.C.\n1955), reimburse the General operating expenses' account for the cost of administration of the\ninsurance programs financed through those accounts: Provided, That reimbursement shall be made only\nfrom the surplus earnings accumulated in an insurance program in fiscal year 2001, that are available\nfor dividends in that program after claims have been paid and actuarially determined reserves have\nbeen set aside: Provided further, That if the cost of administration of an insurance program exceeds the\namount of surplus earnings accumulated in that program, reimbursement shall be made only to the\nextent of such surplus earnings: Provided further, That the Secretary shall determine the cost of\n7 of 8\n10/19/2000 1:21 PM\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r106:1:./temp/~r1061BFp7F:e2386:\nadministration for fiscal year 2001, which is properly allocable to the provision of each insurance\nprogram and to the provision of any total disability income insurance included in such insurance\nprogram.\nSec. 108. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, collections authorized by the Veterans Millennium\nHealth Care and Benefits Act (Public Law 106-117) and credited to the appropriate Department of\nVeterans Affairs accounts in fiscal year 2001, shall not be available for obligation or expenditure unless\nappropriation language making such funds available is enacted.\nSec. 109. In accordance with section 1557 of title 31, United States Code, the following obligated\nbalance shall be exempt from subchapter IV of chapter 15 of such title and shall remain available for\nexpenditure until September 30, 2003: funds obligated by the Department of Veterans Affairs for a\ncontract with the Institute for Clinical Research to study the application of artificial neural networks to\nthe diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer through the Cooperative DoD/VA Medical Research\nprogram from funds made available to the Department of Veterans Affairs by the Department of\nDefense Appropriations Act, 1995 (Public Law 103-335) under the\nheading `Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'.\nSec. 110. As HR LINK$ will not be part of the Franchise Fund in fiscal year 2001, funds budgeted in\ncustomer accounts to purchase HR LINK$ services from the Franchise Fund shall be transferred to the\nGeneral Administration portion of the General operating expenses' appropriation in the following\namounts: $78,000 from the Office of Inspector General', $358,000 from the National cemetery\nadministration', $1,106,000 from Medical care', $84,000 from Medical administration and\nmiscellaneous operating expenses', and $38,000 shall be reprogrammed within the General operating\nexpenses' appropriation from the Veterans Benefits Administration to General Administration for the\nsame purpose.\nSec. 111. Not to exceed $1,600,000 from the 'Medical care' appropriation shall be transferred to the\nGeneral operating expenses' appropriation to fund personnel services costs of employees providing\nlegal services and administrative support for the Office of General Counsel.\nSec. 112. Not to exceed $1,200,000 may be transferred from the 'Medical care' appropriation to the\nGeneral operating expenses' appropriation to fund contracts and services in support of the Veterans\nBenefits Administration's Benefits Delivery Center, Systems Development Center, and Finance Center,\nlocated at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Hines, Illinois.\nSec. 113. Not to exceed $4,500,000 from the Construction, minor projects' appropriation and not to\nexceed $2,000,000 from the Medical care' appropriation may be transferred to and merged with the\nParking Revolving Fund for surface parking lot projects.\nSec. 114. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise\nmade available in this Act for Medical care' appropriations of the Department of Veterans Affairs may\nbe obligated for the realignment of the health care delivery system in Veterans Integrated Service\nNetwork 12 (VISN 12) until 60 days after the Secretary of Veterans Affairs certifies that the Department\nhas: (1) consulted with veterans organizations, medical school affiliates, employee representatives,\nState veterans and health associations, and other interested parties with respect to the realignment plan\nto be implemented; and (2) made available to the Congress and the public information from the\nconsultations regarding possible impacts on the accessibility of veterans health care services to affected\nveterans.\nTHIS SEARCH\nTHIS DOCUMENT\nTHIS CR ISSUE\nGO TO\nNext Hit\nForward\nNext Document\nNew CR Search\nPrev Hit\nBack\nPrev Document\nHomePage\nHit List\nBest Sections\nDaily Digest\nHelp\nDOC Contents\n8 of 8\n10/19/2000 1:21 PM\nConrad Egan <[email protected]>\n09/20/2000 04:14:41 PM\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nMichael Deich/OMB/EOP\nCC:\nFrancis S. Redburn/OMB/EOP, Margy Waller/OPD/EOP, Alan B. Rhinesmith/OMB/EOP, Lauren E.\nBloomquist/OMB/EOP\nSubject: project-based voucher program\nDear Mr. Deich:\nFollowing up on earlier discussions about vouchers, I would like to confirm\nthe National Housing Conference's (NHC) position that it is vital to revise\nthe statutory provisions for the project-based voucher program in order to\nenable more PHAs to use project-basing as a tool to increase production of\naffordable housing and to improve voucher utilization.\nNHC has collaborated with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities on the\npolicy decisions involved in the August 31 (and earlier) drafts and supports\nthe policy choices reflected. The programmatic improvements proposed by the\nCenteron Budget are good, necessary and very important to making the program\nwork.\nNHC, however, feels that the 15% limitation on project-based vouchers is an\nappropriate across-the-board ceiling to maintain at this time. We believe it\nis far more important to make it feasible for PHAs to use project-basing as\na tool than to increase the percentage of vouchers that may be\nproject-based.\nLastly, NHC supports the concept that new vouchers linked to tax credit\ndevelopments or other new production should be project-based but with\ntenants having the guarantee of a tenant-based voucher with which to move\nafter the initial year.\nSincerely,\nConrad E. Egan\nDirector of Policy\nNational Housing Conference"
}