PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Jul 22, 2009
Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2009 - (Sec. 2) Amends the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (the Act) to revise requirements for supportive housing for persons with disabilities. (Retains authority to provide such assistance to private nonprofit organizations to expand the supply of such housing.)
Repeals the authority of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide tenant-based rental assistance directly to eligible persons with disabilities.
Authorizes appropriations for such assistance under section 8 (rental voucher program) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 for persons with disabilities in FY2010 in the amount necessary to provide the same number of incremental vouchers provided in FY2009.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Secretary to issue guidance to public housing agencies (PHAs) receiving voucher assistance under this Act, as well as those that received such assistance under the United States Housing Act of 1937 for incremental vouchers for non-elderly disabled families during FY1997-FY2002, in order to ensure that such vouchers continue to be provided upon turnover to qualified persons with disabilities or to qualified non-elderly disabled families.
(Sec. 3) Modifies project rental assistance contract requirements, including renewal of, and increases in, annual contract amounts.
Requires initial contracts with the sponsor of a project assisted with any low-income housing tax credit or with any tax-exempt housing bonds to have an initial term of up to 360 months and to provide funding for 60 months.
Revises the requirement that all units in housing assisted by capital advances and project rental assistance contracts be made available for occupancy by very low-income persons with disabilities for at least 40 years.
Requires the Secretary, within 30 days of issuing certain capital advances for multifamily projects (except group homes or independent living facilities), to delegate review and processing of such projects to a state or local housing agency meeting specified criteria.
Revises tenant selection procedures.
Requires a lease between a tenant and a housing owner to be for at least one year.
Revises the application of cost limitations developed by the Secretary to supportive housing. Authorizes the Secretary to waive such limitations.
Requires the Secretary to: (1) establish a minimum percentage of capital advances per fiscal year for multifamily projects; and (2) carry out a project rental assistance competitive demonstration program to expand the supply of supportive housing for non-elderly adults with disabilities and with extremely low-incomes or for extremely low-income households that include at least one disabled person.
(Sec. 5) Repeals the Secretary's authority to require an owner to deposit an amount up to $10,000 in a special escrow account to assure the owner's commitment to the housing.
(Sec. 6) Authorizes appropriations for FY2010-FY2014.
(Sec. 7) Requires the Secretary to issue new regulations and guidance for the program under the Act for supportive housing for persons with disabilities to carry out such program in accordance with the amendments made by this Act.
(Sec. 8) Directs the Comptroller General to study and report to Congress on the adequacy and effectiveness of the program in assisting households of persons with disabilities.
People & committees
Rep. Murphy, Christopher [D-CT-5] · D–CT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 376 - 51 (Roll no. 607). (text: CR 7/20/2009 H8381-8384)
House roll call 607 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 376 - 51 (Roll no. 607).(text: CR 7/20/2009 H8381-8384)
House roll call 607 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8510-8511)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1675.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8381-8385)
Mr. Grayson moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1675 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1675 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1675 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1675 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.